135.3 ]

The Gospel according to Auerbach

jane o. newman

N 1948, NOT LONG AFTER HE ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FROM HIS Turkish exile during World War II, the German Jewish Roman- I ist and comparatist Erich Auerbach (1892–1957) gave a lecture on Dante on the campus of Penn State University. Delivered in some- what halting En­glish—a tape of the lecture has survived (Vialon, “Die Stimme Dantes” [“Dante’s Voice”])—the talk, “The Three Traits of Dante’s Poetry,” is marked by the venue as an academic one. This made sense; Auerbach had already written both a book and any number of essays and chapters on Dante by this time.1 Yet, as part of the annual Simmons Series, the lecture may have also been designed, at least in part, for a more general audience. In any case, both publics might have been somewhat perturbed by Auerbach’s opening claim that very few readers actually know the text of Dante’s Divine Com- edy; Dante is in fact, he maintains, “one of the great authors who sur- JANE O. NEWMAN is professor of compar- vive rather by . . . the evocative power of their name.” But, Auerbach ative literature at the University of Cali- continues, readers who do engage with the poem directly discover fornia, Irvine. Her teaching and research that, beyond the name, “[t]‌here are in this great work many passages interests include comparative European Renaissance and early modern literature of such emotional and poetical power that they enter the soul of the and political theory and dialogues be- reader immediately and spontaneously” (“Three Traits” 188). These tween pre- and early modernity and the two different kinds of “power,” one associated with the author’s name modern and postmodern worlds, and she and person, the other with his text, both guarantee Dante’s fame. has been a fellow at the National Human- Auerbach’s observations in 1948 about the blended powers of ities Center and the American Academy Dante’s name and his text are surprisingly relevant for another im- in Berlin. Her translations of a selection portant case—his own. Here, however, the name of the author and of Erich Auerbach’s essays appeared as the substance of his most well-­known book, the 1946 Mimesis: Dar- Time, History, and Literature: Selected Essays of Erich Auerbach (Princeton UP, ge­stellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur (Mimesis: The 2014), and she is completing a book Representation of Reality in Western Literature), are often yoked so entitled “Auerbach’s Worlds: Existential firmly together that they “enter the soul” of both lay and professional Realism in the Work of Erich Auerbach.” readers simultaneously. Auerbach’s personal history seems to lie

© 2020 jane o. newman PMLA 135.3 (2020), published by the Modern Language Association of America 455

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 455 6/22/20 7:43 PM 456 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

-enfolded within Mimesis, for example, when Jewish ways of reading Auerbach in the con­  it is described in the pages of The New Yorker text of Germany in the 1930s.6 Theorists of as a “soulful narrative” whose story parallels world literature have both endorsed and cri- its author’s (Krystal 84). Elsewhere, the book tiqued Auerbach and his work in their debates is invested with almost human characteristics along similar lines.7 In these receptions, Auer- when it is described as “enthralling” (Haco- bach’s philology is read as part and parcel of hen 615). Seth Lerer even claims that “Auer- his biography and times.8 bach comes alive in it” (24). This tendency to There is much that is compelling in this read the man and his book as “consubstan- approach. Literary criticism and theory do tial” (Montaigne 504) was of course initiated not develop in a vacuum. This essay neverthe- by Auerbach himself. After all, it was he who less argues for reading Auerbach and Mimesis first suggested—somewhat misleadingly—that together in a different context—namely, the Mimesis had been written in his lonely exile Christian existentialist milieu he belonged “in Istanbul between May, 1942 and April, to during his years as a professor at the Uni- 1945.”2 Indeed, the very grammar of Mime- versity of Marburg, from 1929 to 1935–36— sis’s last lines lends the book pathos when it and in conversation with the thought of his locates it alongside its author on the shores of friend and colleague there, the famous Prot- the Bosporus by cunningly having the “Unter- estant existential theologian Rudolf Bult- suchung” (“study”) itself seek to “erreichen” mann (1884–1976). Bultmann’s work on the (“reach”) its “Leser” (“readers”), if they “Pro­ble­ma­tik des Diesseits,” or “problematic “überleben” (“survive”) the war (518; 557).3 of immanence” (Presence 189), can be seen Embedded in these years and contexts and an- to inform both Auerbach’s work in Mimesis thropomorphic tropes, Mimesis has thus come overall and chapter 2 of that book in particu- to function, prosopopoeia-­like (Kadir 26), as a lar, when he discusses Peter’s denial of Christ “document” of its author’s “complex personal as it is depicted in the Gospel of Mark. In and literary history” (Lerer 23), nowhere more Sigmund Freud’s famous description of the pointedly so than in the context of Auerbach’s multilayered archaeologies of civilizations perilous life as a German Jew after 1933, when and psyches, multiple pasts jostle against the Nazis came to power, and then, after both one another and the present and come 1935–36, during his prolonged exilic life.4 It is “to light” (16–18) at various times and usu- these chronological, geographic, and political ally in complicated ways. Auerbach’s reading coordinates, then, and the narratives associ- of the Gospel of Mark provides an excellent ated with them, that lie at the foundation of example of such complex residues. Their pres- the “affective . . . attachment” (Wurgaft 363) ence ought not to surprise us. After all, Auer- to both Auerbach and his book that has in bach was already forty-­three years old when large part determined how both have been he was forced to leave Germany’s National read over the past twenty-­some years of their Socialist academy and state. By that time, he En­glish-­language reception. Critics conflate had published numerous articles on many of Auerbach’s person and Mimesis both when the texts he discusses in Mimesis. While his they align them with a Eurocentric and man- positions on some issues did evolve over time, darin advocacy of the Western great books in it is unlikely that he would have left the al- the United States (Lan­dauer) and when they ready mature scholarly commitments he had associate them with an exilic postcoloniality developed in conversation with his Marburg and cosmopolitanist consciousness and proj- colleagues behind when he fled. Looking to ect (because of Auer­bach’s time in Turkey).5 the ideas and language of Christian existen- Such conflations also occur in the specifically tialism during Auerbach’s preexile years and

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 456 6/22/20 7:43 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 457  understanding their impact on his work helps Protestant existentialism that informs this explain the “emotional . . . power” of Mimesis particular New Testament gloss. Again, Au- and the hold it has had on so many readers. erbach would have encountered this version of existential theology during his time as a professor of Romance languages at the Uni- Auerbach’s Christianity versity of Marburg, most directly through his This section heading may seem counter- contact there with the German Lutheran New intuitive. In spite of both how assimilated Testament scholar Bultmann.12 he and his family may have been and his Understanding Auerbach’s approach to stated indebtedness to Christian thought, Peter’s story and its indebtedness to Bultmann the German-­Jewish Auerbach was of course as representative of the Marburg context is not a Christian.9 The possessive genitive thus crucial to helping us to see Auerbach and his points not to questions of personal religiosity work in new ways—that is, to see Mimesis as or alignment with a particular faith. Rather, a project with a longer collaborative history it underlines the centrality of a fine-­grained (rather than the melancholic reflections of a understanding of the Christian tradition to solitary exile on the shores of the Bosporus Auerbach’s work, as is obvious in his lifelong looking back at a Europe in flames) that con- interest in figures such as Augustine, Dante, cerns, as Auerbach himself writes in his “Epi- and Pascal. This interest is particularly clear legomena to Mimesis” (1954), not only literary in his reading in Mimesis, chapter 2, of a key “realism” but also the “dargestellte Wirklich- text from this tradition—namely, Peter’s de- keit” (“represented reality”) of the finitude nial of Christ in the Gospel according to of the human condition (“Epilegomena zu Mark (14.66–72),10 where the apostle refuses, Mimesis” 468–69; “Epilegomena to Mimesis” after Jesus has been arrested, to admit that 561). Acknowledging the importance of early-­ he is part of His movement (he has been rec- twentieth-­century Christian existentialism in ognized as a follower on the basis of his Gal- Germany for Auerbach’s work also helps us lilean accent). To date, Auerbach’s reading address the question with which I began— of the Markan text has been noted by only namely, why so many chapters of this famous a very few scholars (Cho; Rancière, “Body” book move professional academic and lay and “Corps”; Von Koppenfels), who, in line readers alike. They do so because in them Au- with much Auerbach reception, look to it pri- erbach explores our existential rootedness in marily in the context of Germany’s failures the world of the desperate creaturely realities under Nazism and Auerbach’s post–World of human everydayness in the face of what he War II stance on method. I approach Auer- elsewhere calls the “enormous and terrible bach’s reading of Peter’s miscarriage of faith reality of history” (“Giambattista Vico” 35; differently, arguing that Auerbach’s gloss of trans. modified). In the “Epilegomena,” Auer- Mark 14 channels concerns central to debates bach himself writes that his main concern in conducted by theologians and philosophers Mimesis might have more felicitously been de- of religion in the early twentieth century fined as “existentielle[r] Realismus” (“‘existen- associated with Christian existentialism in tial realism’”), an “Ausdruck” (“term”) that he Germany.11 Peter E. Gordon has explained had nevertheless “scheute . . . zu gebrauchen” that “existential theology” took many forms (“hesitated to use”) at the time as “allzu zeit- during this period and crossed confessional genössisch” (“all too contemporary”) “für lines (163); Edward Baring confirms that this Phä­no­mene der entfernten Vergangenheit” was the case. Auerbach was aware of many (“for phenomena of the distant past” [“Epi- of these debates, but it is his familiarity with legomena zu Mimesis” 468; “Epilegomena to

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 457 6/22/20 7:44 PM 458 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

Mimesis” 561]). The claim is disingenuous, chapters is long overdue. Up close, the tales of  since he had himself used it to describe his in­ Peter and of Abraham (as told by Auerbach) terests in his essay “Über die ernste Nachah­ in fact resemble each other; both represent a mung des Alltäglichen” (448; “On the Serious form of encounter between divinity and hu­ Imitation of the Everyday”), which may have mankind, for example, and both are tests of been the last thing he wrote before he fled faith. But in Auerbach’s accounts, Abraham’s Germany. Auerbach continues this line of steady and self-­transcending obedience to thought in 1954 when he writes that the kind God’s command is very different from Peter’s of realism in which he was interested in Mi- crippling and self-­absorbed doubt. A closer at­ mesis overall “war . . . mit unverkennbarer, tention to the context in which these two read­ ja überwältigender Deutlichkeit aus der Pe­ ings arose points to early-­twentieth-­century trus­stelle und meiner Analyse derselben zu theological existentialism and to Bultmann’s ent­neh­men” (“can be inferred with unmis­ work in particular as frames of reference and takable, even overpowering clarity from the suggests the dialogue the two stories create.13 passage about Peter and my analysis of it” First Abraham. [“Epilegomena zu Mimesis” 468–69; “Epile­ One of the most famous associations gomena to Mimesis” 561]). It is thus to this of the imponderability of the Abrahamic “analysis” that I now turn. moment of subjection to an invisible but all-­powerful God at the time was with the proto-­existentialist Søren Kierkegaard’s dis­ Existential Reality: Abraham and Peter cussion of the akedah in Fear and Trembling Auerbach emphasizes the centrality of the (1843), where Kierkegaard takes it as an exem­ story of Peter to Mimesis in the “Epilegomena” plification of the radical difference between when he responds to criticisms of the way he the realm of humanity and the kingdom of handled the classical (and especially the Ho­ God. Since 1882, Fear and Trembling had meric) tradition in his 1946 book and sug­ been available in German, as Furcht und Zit- gests that he could (and perhaps should) have tern, in the Protestant pastor Hinrich Corne­ dropped the first chapter entirely. He writes, lius Ketels’s translation (Schreiber 290), which “[F]‌ür meine Zwecke hätte es genügt mit der was in its third edition by 1923. By that year, Zeit um Christi Geburt zu be­gin­nen” (“For Kier­ke­gaard’s centrality to early-­twentieth-­ my purposes it would have sufficed to begin century “crisis theology” in Germany had with the time around the birth of Christ” [467; become highly visible in the preface to the 560]). Had he done so, the book’s first chapter second edition of Der Römerbrief (The Epistle would have been the chapter entitled “Fortu­ to the Romans) by the dialectical theologian nata,” which readers now encounter as chap­ Karl Barth (1886–1968), published the year ter 2. The move would have eliminated not before (e.g., vii). Barth’s interest in the Dane only the discussion of Odysseus’s scar to which was but one example of the early-­twentieth-­ some classical scholars had taken exception, century Kierkegaard “Renaissance” (De Vries but also the story of Abraham and the sacri­ 1083–86). Another particularly conspicuous ”akedah), the exemplary moment of this revival was the “conversation ; )הָדיֵקֲעָה fice of Isaac tale from Hebrew Scripture so often taken to between Barth and Bultmann on matters of define the terms of the entire book (Porter, faith, which was in fact a tense exchange “Erich Auer­bach”). That he kept chapter 1 about their respective dialectical-­theological but thought to underscore the importance of and existential-­theological alternatives to chapter 2 in the “Epilegomena” suggests that what both considered Germany’s impover­ an analysis of the relation between the two ished “liberal” “cultural Christianity” (De

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 458 6/22/20 7:44 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 459  Vries 1085). By the late 1920s, when Auerbach Istanbul where he is known to have worked arrived in Marburg, Bultmann’s position on after 1936 (Konuk 141–42). The details of Kierke­gaard in association with Heideggerian Auerbach’s reading of Genesis 22 help us un­ existentialism had become a major problem derstand the implication of his glosses in the for Barth.14 In the following years, Bultmann earlier and specifically Protestant—if not also intensified his commitments; in a lecture ap­ ultimately Lutheran—context in Marburg be­ parently first given in 1941, for example, he fore he fled. names the New Testament, Luther, and Kier­ For example, Auerbach’s account in Mi- ke­gaard all in one breath as central to the mesis of Abraham’s trial is located squarely “Existenzverständnis” (“existential under­ within an almost Barthian endorsement of standing”) of “moderne Philosophie” (“Neues what Barth calls “the infinite qualitative dif­ Testament“ 37; Kerygma 26). ference between God and man” (qtd. in De It is unlikely that Auerbach would have Vries 1086). When He demands Isaac’s sac­ been unfamiliar with Bultmann’s position on rifice, Auerbach writes, God is “unbekannt” Kier­kegaard’s philosophy during his time in (“unknown”), “nicht dort” (“not there”), Marburg. The decision to include a discus­ even “verborgen” (“hidden” [10–11, 17, 19; sion of the akedah up front in the book that 8–9, 15, 17]). Even though He gives His “Be­ he, again, famously claims to have written fehl in direkter Rede” (“command in direct in Istanbul but that, like the essay “Figura” discourse”), “er verschweigt sein Motiv und (1938), he had already begun to conceptual­ seine Absicht” (“He leaves His motives and ize in Marburg, may profitably be read in this His purpose unexpressed” [13; 11]). For all context.15 During the years he and Auerbach this mystery or perhaps precisely because were colleagues, Bultmann published his of it, God, inaccessible to the humanity that well-­known essay “Die Bedeutung des Alten Abraham represents, becomes the most com­ Testaments für den christlichen Glauben” pelling character here; Abraham, however (“The Significance of the Old Testament for “schwer getroffen” (“sorely tried”), is only Christian Faith”), for example, in which he of interest because of his adherence to “das observes that Hebrew Scripture was as open Pünk­tli­che . . . im Gehorsam” (“punctual to existentialist interpretation as the New obedience” [12; 10]), Auerbach explains.17 Testament (Gunneweg). That Auerbach was In a cunning theophilosophically informed in conversation with him and other Protes­ moment of sensitive close reading, Auerbach tant scholars in Marburg could explain not stresses that God’s sovereignty and His dis­ only why Auerbach appears to have read and tant, but final, power over humanity are both cited Genesis 22 in Luther’s translation rather existentially and narratively overwhelming; than in Hebrew in the original German text none of the details of the text serve any other of Mimesis (Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit end than the one He “[hat] befohlen” (“has 10), but also, and more importantly, why he commanded” [11; 9]). This is a kind of real­ turned to the most famous early-­twentieth-­ ism that “ziehlte . . . nicht auf ‘Wirklichkeit’” century commentary on Hebrew Scripture, (is “not primarily oriented toward ‘reality’”) by the Lutheran Old Testament scholar Her­ as representation at all, Auerbach explains. mann Gunkel (1862–1932), Genesis (first pub­ Rather, it focuses on the reality of the “tyran­ lished in 1901, followed by five more editions nisch” (“tyrannical”) “Wahrheit” (“truth” by 1922), as a source for his reading of the [17, 16; 14, 14]) of God’s power. Both text and story.16 It cannot be assumed that Auerbach divine command “wollen . . . unterwerfen” would have found the Lutheran Gunkel’s vol­ (“seek [to] subjugate [17; 15; trans. modified]) ume in the Catholic Dominican library in readers by “rauben” (“rob[bing]”) them of

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 459 6/22/20 7:44 PM 460 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

”their “Ge­müts­frei­heit” (“emotional freedom” son “nie­drig­sten gesellschaftlichen Ranges  [13; 11]). In this argument, the style of He­ (“of the humblest social station” [44; 41]). In brew Scripture works in the same imperious contrast to chapter 1, chapter 2 focuses on way as the “Old Testament” God Himself.18 the tortured human condition in which both And yet (and still following an almost Christ and the individual believer are caught; Barthian reading): even as Auerbach describes here, it is Peter’s correspondingly profane in­ Abraham in all his helpless humanity as fully ability to think his finitude together with di­ other than the divinity whose works and vinity that appears to concern Auerbach the deeds are at the story’s center, he describes the most. That this more profoundly anxious ver­ patriarch as ontologically secure in his sub­ sion of humanity, as it is tested in its relation jection. Obedience is all we get in the part of to that which transcends it, is responding to Abraham’s story on which Auerbach dwells. the theological positions and discursive con­ We are not asked, for example, to consider ditions of Marburg’s Christian existentialist any part of the tale beyond Abraham’s—and milieu and to the Lutheran Bultmann’s wres­ Isaac’s—doing exactly what Abraham “be­ tling with the question of faith in particular fohlen ist” (“has been told to do”). Auer­ is obliquely manifest from the very start when bach’s version of the akedah in fact breaks Auerbach turns from his ancient Roman ex­ off—“‘Und gingen die beiden miteinander’” amples of Petronius (27–66 CE) and Tacitus (“‘So they went both of them together’” [13; (c. 58–102 CE) to the Gospel of Mark as a “Ge­ 11])—before the intervention of the angel and gen­beispiel” (“counterexample” [43; 40]) and the substitution of the ram (Genesis 22.8). In explains in a not-­so-­casual aside that his deci­ Genesis according to Auerbach, then, it is the sion to focus on Mark’s version of these events singular spectacle of the “erhabene Wirkung rather than Matthew’s or Luke’s was based on Got­tes” (“sublime influence of God”) that the fact that “die Unterschiede bei den Synop­ takes center stage—even when it reaches “tief tikern sind . . . unbedeutend” (“the differences in das Alltägliche” (“deeply into the everyday” in the synoptists are . . . insignificant” [44; [Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit 26; Mime- 40]). The claim is extraordinary, given what sis: The Representation 22]). The struggles of even a casual student of the synoptic Gospels the individual existentialist “believer,” who would have known about their differences at Barth had complained was always at the cen­ the time. The remark suggests the context in ter of Bultmann’s concerns (Harbsmeier 321), which Auerbach could have considered Peter’s do not figure prominently in this reading.19 rather than Abraham’s story as the core of Mi- When told in this way, Abraham’s terrifying mesis’s message and allows us to consider the but ultimately uplifting trial signifies an ­al ways this context may have shaped his read­ most Barthian ability on humanity’s part to ing of how Peter’s story moves us.20 have faith, a faith that nevertheless appears to First: asserting that the differences be­ be not even properly human when it testifies tween the synoptic Gospels were minor flies only to the “Größe” (“greatness”) and “Er­ in the face of long-­accepted conclusions ha­ben­heit” (“transcendent majesty”) of God about the “Synoptic Problem,” as the de­ (Auerbach, Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit bates about the “mutual relationships of the 21; Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation 18). gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke” were What about Peter? In Mimesis, chapter 2, known (Bultmann, “New Approach” 337). a human being is also tested on his faith—in Bult­mann’s work figured prominently in this case, however, on his ability to believe these discussions. As he explains in detail in a divinity that, unlike Abraham’s God, in his 1926 essay “The New Approach to the has become incarnate in the world as a per­ Synoptic Gospels,” for example, the impor­

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 460 6/22/20 7:44 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 461  tant differences between Matthew, Mark, and Approach” 350) and updates them by making Luke emerge clearly on the basis of the widely them more urgent in the here and now of each accepted approach known as Formgeschichte and every reader—including Auerbach. In a (“form history”), the close text-­critical assess- later text, Bultmann used the term hi­sto­risch ment of the “history of forms”—and, tellingly to describe the earlier way of reading Scrip- for Auerbach’s possible reception of Formge- ture referentially, so to speak, and advocated schichte concerns, also of “style” (344)—that as an alternative to it a way of reading that had been pioneered by the German Lutheran looked, rather, at how any individuals in any professor of theology Martin Dibelius (1883– historical community and “Situation” in the 1947) in his Die Formgeschichte des Evan- midst of their own “geschichtliches Ge­sche­ ge­li­ums (1919; The Form History of the New hen” (“historical events”)—their own Ge- Testament [Köhler 603]). Auerbach’s pre- schichte (“history”)—receive the message of ferred Gospel, Mark, played a central role in Christ (“Neues Testament” 47; Kerygma 37; the development of this method. trans. modified). This shift to reading Scrip- At the most basic level, the form-­historical ture as testimony to Geschichte—to the Logia approach to Scripture endowed Mark with a collector’s or the evangelists’ particular needs privileged position because analyses informed and existential “situation” in the world, in by the method—like those produced by Bult- other words—rather than to some external mann—distinguished between “traditional” historical context and time was the move that elements of the Gospels that date back to the lay at the heart of what has become known as time of Jesus of Nazareth’s “genuinely his- Bultmann’s “de-­mythologiz[ing]” of Scripture torical” preaching, available in the so-­called (Gordon 163–64).22 That Auerbach was read- Lo­gia, or “sayings” of Jesus, on the one hand, ing Peter’s denial in this way is clear when and later “redactions,” “additions or modifica- he stresses how the apostle is caught in the tions,” introduced by the evangelists into the exigencies of his own personal moment and sayings to create post facto narratives, on the situation. The approach may account for the other (Bultmann, “New Approach”). With its peculiar urgency that he expresses and that relative simplicity, the Gospel of Mark was readers have found in this section of chapter 2. held to be closest to the Logia; the result was It is unlikely that Auerbach did not dis- the Markan “priority thesis.” Moreover, Auer- cuss the denial of Peter in Mark with Bult- bach’s claim that Mark could stand for all the mann. Auerbach had himself already written synoptics indicates his acceptance of Markan about the episode in 1929 in Dante als Dichter priority—in spite of the fact that the form-­ der irdischen Welt (Dante: Poet of the Secular historical debates on which this priority was World [19–20; 12–13]), and Bultmann’s evolv- based also demonstrably confirmed that there ing position on the Markan version of apos- were differences between the Gospels. More- tolic events was also well known. In his early, over, Auerbach’s reading of Mark is highly foundational 1921 book Die Geschichte der personal—he fails to cite the text directly as he sy­nop­ti­schen Tradition (History of the Synop- so often does in most other Mimesis chapters tic Tradition)—in the pages devoted to Mark, but, rather, paraphrases it;21 this approach also for example (204–14; 338–51)—Bultmann pri- relies on the Form­ge­schichte method, which, oritizes the impact on humankind of Christ’s by sequencing the various moments inscribed body natural, reading the text as depicting in a text, contests the practice of seeing the the barrier to understanding the words and Gospels as “narratives of actual events” rooted the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth that the all-­ in the specific “historical” time and context of too-­human apostolic collective confronted. Jesus of Nazareth’s ministry (Bultmann, “New He observes that the apostles in the Markan

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 461 6/22/20 7:44 PM 462 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

-text seem almost magically constrained by an Evangelien” (“Studies of the Synoptic Gos  a priori inability to comprehend the truth of pels”) and continue into the years when he the Christ event linked to the human limita- and Auerbach were in Marburg. tions of His followers: “das Nicht-­verstehen-­ In the context of readings like these, Au- können liegt wie ein Zauberbann auf ihnen” erbach’s initial decision to focus on the Gos- (“the incapacity to understand lay like some pel of Mark by claiming that it could stand sorcerer’s ban on them all” [211; 346]). The for all the synoptics makes sense since he too entire story of Jesus’s ministry as it is told in was interested in how such texts—indeed, all Mark is thus one of the struggle of His human texts—have an impact on their readers. In followers to transcend their entanglement in fact, beginning with Mark (instead of any of the limitations that their finitude imposes on the other synoptics) has the effect of creating them by having “faith” in His divine pow- in its version of Peter’s denial—rather than in ers—which they repeatedly have trouble do- Abraham’s faith—an exemplary An­satz­punkt ing, as when Jesus rebukes them after calming (“point of departure”) for Auerbach’s study the windstorm: “Why are you afraid? Have of how and why we as readers can participate you still no faith?” (Mark 4.40). Tellingly, it is in or feel “Teilnahme” (“sympathy”) with our the “weakness” of the human “flesh” (14.38) fellow human beings (Mimesis: Dargestellte that keeps James, John, and Peter from stay- Wirklichkeit 46; Mimesis: The Representation ing awake at Gethsemane. This same weak- 42). Auerbach’s expert close reading of the test ness is famously acute in Peter, whom Jesus of Peter’s faith thus implicitly asks readers to singles out for focusing too much on “human” compare its details to the details of Abraham’s and not enough on “divine things” (8.33). trial, and to choose which of the reactions to Bult­mann’s 1921 gloss underscores that it is the demand to believe is more realistic. As he precisely these weaknesses that gave rise to does in chapter 1, for example, with his tight the failures of faith visible in the original ap- focus on a single moment of the akedah story, ostolic community’s inability to believe that when an obedient Abraham displays his faith, Jesus was the Son of God until after the Res- here too Auerbach zeroes in on a specific slice urrection (Die Geschichte 211; History 346). of the story, the moment when Peter fails to This delay of faith was then replayed, he ex- understand the paradox of Jesus’s mortal plains, in the context of the doubt of the early form. Bultmann’s interest had been in how the Christian communities out of which the Gos- Markan text foregrounds the reality of a gen- pels themselves arose, when explanations had eral apostolic beholdenness to the world of the to be developed and rituals prescribed to help flesh. Auerbach follows suit, explaining that people wait out the time until the promised the origins of this reality lie in Peter’s mistak- Second Coming. Central to the existential ing of this world for all that there is: Auerbach theological approach was the claim that this describes the apostle’s despair as the result of second delay is reproduced in each and every his disappointed realization that the expected believer’s personal struggle to continue to be- “Wunder, durch das der Messias seine Feinde lieve in the time of salvation in the face of the nie­der­schmet­tern würde” (“miracle by which baleful mundanity of life. Bultmann writes the Messiah would crush his enemies”) has that “die Jünger . . . vertreten . . . den Leser failed to occur (45; 42). The gloss thus catches [und] die Gemeinde” (“the apostles repre- Peter in the characteristic act of thinking too sent the reader and the community” [213; my much on “human things”—such as expect- trans.]). Versions of the argument he develops ing that Jesus’s only possible response to his in 1921 go on to appear in works beginning in persecutors would be to physically defeat 1925 with “Die Erforschung der synoptischen them. When he tarries over this very human

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 462 6/22/20 7:44 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 463  expectation, Auerbach guarantees that this gencies of this life by saying “yes” to Jesus as moment—and his reading of it—will indeed the Christ—and cannot. And when he says “[sich] an jedermann [wenden]” (“speak to ev- “no,” he does so explicitly in the face of the erybody” [51; 48]). “Un­si­cher­heit” (“insecurity”) that is for Bult­ Peter’s entrapment in creaturely mun- mann “das Wesen der menschlichen Existenz” danity becomes even clearer when Auerbach (“the real nature of human existence” [“Kri­ goes on to train his gaze neither just on the sis” 7; “Crisis” 246]), and he bows to “die all­ nighttime identification by a serving girl of täg­li­che Sorge” (“everyday care[s]‌” [3; 242]) the apostle as a follower of Jesus, as described when he chooses to save his own skin rather by Mark (14.66–72), nor only on Peter’s scan- than to pursue “Freiheit” (“freedom”) from dalously repetitious denial that he belongs “zu “Angst” (“anxiety”) by believing in God be- der Gruppe Jesu” (“to Jesus’ group” [Mime- come Man (9; 247). sis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit 44; Mimesis: The Auerbach zeroes in on Peter’s perfor- Representation 41]). Rather, what Auerbach is mance of this crisis because it provides evi- after is Peter’s debilitating recognition that his dence of a genuinely human response to the “Glaube” (“faith”) was “nicht tief genug” (“not fear and “Gefahr” (“danger”) of the situation deep enough”) in the first place (45; 42). Here (Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit 44; Mime- again we become aware of the disciple’s spe- sis: The Representation 41). It is worth noting cifically human limits within the “concrete” that Auerbach must add this creaturely fear situation that is missing in Abraham’s story to the original text, which does not stress it. (Cho 88). Although “auf­ge­ru­fen” (“called”) The response nevertheless parallels Peter’s out of his quotidian existence to recognize his need—which the Gospel text does include— “Meister” (“master” [Auerbach, Mimesis: Dar- to “warm” himself by the fire in the courtyard ge ­stellte Wirklichkeit 45; Mimesis: The Repre- where he is identified as a follower of Jesus sentation 42) as the Messiah and thus to be (Mark 14.54). (This need for warmth is not both part of and witness to the “Ent­ste­hung emphasized in Matthew’s or Luke’s versions einer geistigen Be­we­gung” (“birth of a spiri- of the scene, which may have been another el- tual movement”) that sets “die Welt der Men- ement that attracted Auerbach to Mark.) Just schen im ganzen . . . in Bewegung” (“the whole as in his version of the akedah in chapter 1, of humanity’s world astir”) with its “revolu- moreover, here Auerbach pointedly disentan- tionäres Weltge­sche­hen” (“world revolution- gles the denial from its original embedded- ary events” [46; 43]), Auerbach’s Peter is in ness in a stylized context in the Markan text the end just a man paralyzed by his fear—he is as well as from the rest of the disciple’s overall “furcht­sam” (“timid”) and “ängst­lich” (“full story.24 This is not to say that the earlier stages of fear” [45; 42]). At the moment of Jesus’s de- of Peter’s life are not methodically ticked off; tention, Peter can think of nothing else but the the fact that Peter’s “verzweifeltes Ver­sa­gen” possibility of his own arrest. “[Z]‌weifelnde” (“desperate failure”) prepared him for “die (“doubt-­ridden”) and only concerned to pre- Visionen, die zur Konstituierung des Chris­ serve his “armes Le­ben” (“miserable life” [42; ten­tums entscheidend beitrugen” (“the visions 45]), Peter in effect fails to continue to have which contributed decisively to the constitu- faith because he is scared.23 He is thus caught tion of Christianity”) is acknowledged (Mi- in what Bultmann, in an essay published mesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit 45; Mimesis: in 1931, two years after Auerbach arrived in The Representation 42). But if his persistent Mar­burg, describes as a “Krisis des Glaubens” “Schwäche” (“weakness”) guarantees the fu- (“crisis of faith”), at the moment when he has ture “Kraft” (“force”) that Peter will derive in effect been asked to see beyond the contin- from it as the leader of the church, the reader

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 463 6/22/20 7:45 PM 464 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

does not hear much about this future, and Pe- captures the permanence of the potentially  ter’s “Verzweifelung” (“despair”) is only quite tragic encounter—universally human but al- generally characterized as a preamble to his ways personally experienced—that each of us destiny. As a result, the bulk of Auerbach’s has with contingency. The “existential” real- reading of Mark condenses around the “Ver- ity that Auerbach explores here thus concerns sagen” (“failure”) itself, focusing on a Peter Peter as he represents all human beings (46; who must confront the fact that his faith had 43) as they face these limits in a “horrifying been “halbes” (“half-­hearted”) all along (45; experience of the self.”25 His subsequent deep 42). Auerbach pointedly notes that “[w]‌ie er engagement in Mimesis with other beliebig aus ihr entrann, ist nicht erzählt” (“how he figures, including Augustine’s Alypius (chap- [Peter] got out of the situation is not narrated” ter 3) and Gustave Flaubert’s Emma Bovary [44; 41]). It does not occur to Auerbach to nar- (chapter 18), who undergo the same excruciat- rate it either, as he leaves the reader of Mimesis ing confrontation with the contingent limits only with some highly speculative sugges- of their creaturely lives, and his sidelining of tions—again, unfounded in Scripture—about those, such as Chrétien de Troye’s Calogre- how Peter “da­von­kam” (“got away” [51; 48]). nant and Yvain (chapter 6) and the characters Even the story of Christ’s “bloße Geschichte of Pierre Corneille’s and Jean Racine’s plays . . . auf Erden” (“naked history . . . on earth”) (chapter 15), who do not, may be best under- and its “sinnlos und qualvoll” (“meaningless stood as the pursuit of ideas first developed and tortured”) end, which were so important in chapter 2 in dialogue with the Lutheran for him in the Dante book, also in connection Bultmann, to whose more explicit glosses on with Peter’s “Er­nie­dri­gung” (“humiliation”), the existential trials of each and every believer cede pride of place to the apostle’s loss of faith in lectures and essays delivered and written here (Dante als Dichter 21, 22; Dante: Poet 13, while Auerbach was in Marburg I now turn. 15; trans. modified). Auerbach uses the term beliebig, or “ran­ Randomness and Faith dom,” ten times in chapter 2 of Mimesis (45–​47; 42–44) to describe the many people To understand the discursive conditions who are as susceptible to being “aufgerufen” out of which Auerbach’s moving treatment (“called” [45; 42]) to witness their human of Peter’s doubt emerges, it is important to frailty as Peter is. Auerbach uses the term consider Bultmann’s theology in a bit more throughout Mimesis and glosses it here. It detail. It has been described as “eine exis­ “be­zeich­net” (“designates”), he writes, “Per­ tenz­phi­lo­sophisch fundierte Theologie des so­nen . . . aus allen möglichen Ständen, Be­ Worts Gottes” (“a theology of the Word of ru­fen, und Lebenslagen” (“people from all God based on existential philosophy” [Rohls classes, occupations, walks of life”) as they 64–65]) that was part of a phenomenological have been “getroffen” (“engulfed”—or, better, hermeneutics that some scholars have argued “struck”)—“zufällig” (“accidentally”) by the developed after Bultmann got to Marburg “ge i ­schicht­l ­che Bewegung” (“historical move- and had contact with Martin Heidegger. ment” [47; 44]). Instead of, or in addition to, Bultmann had glossed Mark’s version of Pe- suggesting that the humble or lower classes ter early on in a short essay published in the may be as involved in the high seriousness of Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissen- matters concerning history and faith as the schaft (Journal of New Testament Scholar- upper classes (this is the crux of Auerbach’s ship), “Die Frage nach dem messianischen signature anticlassicistic definition of the real- Be­wusstsein Jesu und das Petrus-­Bekenntnis” istic mixing of styles), his definition of beliebig (“The Question of Jesus’ Messianic Aware-

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 464 6/22/20 7:45 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 465  ness and the Confession of Peter”), in 1919– ing the moment chronicled by Mark on which 20, and then again, briefly, in the section on Auerbach focuses, when the “überweltliche Mark in the 1921 Geschichte der synoptischen Re­a­l­ität” (“transcendent reality”) of a God Tradition. But the disciple’s doubt is not men­ whose “Macht” (“power”) lies “jenseits” tioned in either text as an emblematically hu­ (“beyond”) this world becomes “zweifelhaft” man event. It is only in subsequent work that (“doubtful”) to someone who is still too much the theologian, in all likelihood already in in the world (“Kri­sis” 1).26 Bult­mann writes, conversation with Heidegger (they had been “[E]‌ch­ter Gottesglaube wächst je aus dem In­ teaching together since 1924 [Rohls, e.g., 70]), ne­werden der Fraglichkeit des Daseins, die addressed the more precise theme that Peter’s nicht in einem Lehrsatz ge­lernt und be­halten struggle to believe represents—namely, how wird, sondern die je im Augenblick des Leb­ human beings characteristically respond to ens zum Bewusstsein kommt” (“Real faith the insecurity of the human condition on oc­ in God grows in each case out of becoming casions such as the one on which Auerbach aware of the questionability of Existence, focuses in Mimesis. As it turns out, Bultmann which cannot be learned and adhered to as a wrote a number of such texts on this subject point of doctrine; rather, it is something each closer to the time when he welcomed Auer­ one of us becomes aware of in each individual bach into Marburg’s intellectual community. moment of life” [6–7; my emphasis]). As noted In the 1925 “Welchen Sinn hat es, von above, Bultmann emphasizes here the chal­ Gott zu reden?” (“What Does It Mean to lenge of finitude that each and every believing Speak of God?”), for example, the question human being confronts individually and per­ of faith is described as “der archimedische sonally when called to “Ja-­Sagen” (“say yes”) Punkt” (“the Archimedean point”) from to God (5, 7). Bultmann invokes the need to which we must always already start out anew “say yes” to God countless times in the text. (37; my trans.); and in the 1929 “Kirche und It would have been difficult for anyone listen­ Lehre im Neuen Testament” (“Church and ing to the lecture not to hear that this was Dogma in the New Testament”), “πίστις” the only solution to the “crisis of faith” about (“faith”) is likewise understood as a form which Bultmann was speaking. It is also pre­ of “Gehorsam” (“obedience”) that is never cisely the opposite of Peter’s choice in the simply “vorhanden” (“given”) but that must Gospel of Mark, as Auerbach reads it, when always be achieved again (“Kirche” 176–77; the apostle “say[s] no” when he is challenged my trans.). In both of these cases, the liberal to declare what and in whom he believes. Protestant approach to New Testament teach­ Again, Bultmann does not mention Peter ings, which endorsed public morality as a way in this lecture about faith. Nor does he use to display one’s commitments, clearly yields the term beliebig here as he does elsewhere to to a highly individualized, personalized vi­ describe the existential trial that all believ­ sion of the permanent existential challenge ers face. But his repeated use of the particle of believing. The shift is clearest in the aptly je (“each”) suggests the Heideggerian con­ titled essay “Die Krisis des Glaubens” (“The cept of Jeweiligkeit, “respectiveness,” which Crisis of Faith”), cited above, which appears for “the early Heidegger . . . signifie[d] the to have begun as a public lecture that Bult­ radically finite and historically particular na­ mann held in Marburg in 1931, two years af­ ture of the individual subject” (Coyne 376). ter Auerbach arrived. Bultmann writes that “der Glaube ist nie Sa­ The “crisis of faith” discussed in this lec­ che ei­ner Generation oder Epoche, sondern ture is not explicitly associated with Peter’s je meine Sache” (faith “is never a matter of denial. But its terms are useful in consider­ a generation or an era, but, rather, always a

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 465 6/22/20 7:45 PM 466 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

matter each time for me” [“Krisis” 13; my em­ be drawn into the text by their own struggle  phasis]); “die Sache je des Augenblicks, mei­ about whether or not to believe. nes Augenblicks” (“it is a matter each time As noted above, “Die Krisis des Glau­bens” of the individual moment, of my moment” was originally held as a lecture in Marburg in [14; my emphasis]). In “Die Eschatologie des 1931. Already in the years leading up to that Johannes-­Evangelium” (1928; “The Eschatol­ lecture, Bultmann had focused on and often ogy of the Gospel of John”), Bultmann had spoken publicly about the always already per­ described “[d]‌ies jeweilige Jetzt . . . das escha­ sonal challenge to have faith, especially when to­lo­gi­sches Jetzt” (every individual’s “respec­ despair and fear threaten. He continued to do tive” “eschatological Now”) in much the same so as that challenge became more urgent. It is way (144; my trans.). We are always only ad­ the central topic, for example, in the introduc­ dressed by “das Wort” (“the Word”), the Lo­ tory lectures he held in the Theological Fac­ gos, in a singular “Augenblick” (“moment”) ulty at Marburg that beginning students were that is our own, and we are also “immer apparently required to attend. Bultmann first neu gewählt” (“always chosen over and over held the so-­called Theologische Enzyklopädie again”) to hear the Word “im Glauben” (“in (Theological Encyclopedia) lectures in 1926, the faith”) “des jeweiligen Jetzt” (“of [our] and he repeated them in 1928, 1930, 1933, and respective Now” [144, 145, 147; my trans.]). 1936 and thus during the very years when he Bultmann’s insistence on the Je­wei­lig­keit of and Auerbach were colleagues—and as the these challenges as they concern each and ev­ political situation in Marburg became more ery one of us may explain how we ought to fraught (Rohls 79–81). In these lectures, Bult­ understand the ubiquity in Mimesis of Auer­ mann takes up the same questions he treats in bach’s term beliebig, as well as its consistent “Kri­sis”: “jeder [muss] stets für sich von vorne linkage to words associated with the “be­lie­ im Christentum anfangen” (“each individual big” (“random”) contingency of “All­tä­glich­ must always begin for himself from the very keit” (“everydayness” [Mimesis: Dar­ge­stellte beginning in Christianity” [Theologische En- Wirk­lich­keit 47; Mimesis: The Representation zyk­lo­pä­die 74; my trans.]). There can thus 44]), not only in chapter 2 of Mimesis but only be the permanently personal decision to throughout the book. Severely undertrans­ believe. Bultmann instructs his young audi­ lated when it is rendered as “randomness,” ence that this decision requires an individual Be g ­lie­bi ­keit had been associated with the con­ enactment of faith and dismisses as “Pseudo-­ tingent, something that can happen to anyone The­o­lo­gie” (115) any attempt to stabilize hu­ at any time, ever since the nineteenth century, man existence by embedding it in rational, when the Grimm brothers defined it that way ethical, or sociopolitical orders or systems of in the German dictionary of record (“Be­lie­ thought defined by predictable and thus com­ big”).27 An alternative translation might thus forting “Gesetzlichkeit” (“lawfulness” [108]). be: that which is of concern to “n’im­porte In the additions Bultmann made to the The qui” (“anyone . . . at all”), as Jacques Ran­cière o­lo­gi­sche Enzyklopädie lectures in 1933, he writes, when confronted with the small fini­ is astonishingly direct about the most proxi­ tudes of daily life (Figures de l’hi­stoire 63; Fig- mate of such orders when he openly chal­ ures of History 69). This sense of beliebig may lenges Nazi ideologies about “Rasse” (“race” also be in play when Auerbach underscores [8]‌), about “Gott im Volk” (“God in the Volk” that those who read Mark’s version of Peter’s [65]), and about “Gesetzesgehorsam” (“obedi­ dilemma are “aufgefordert . . . sich . . . zu ent­ ence to the law” [92; my trans.]). The individ­ schei­den” (“urged and indeed required . . . ual must choose to either “[f]‌esthalten an der to decide” [51; 48]) how to read it—and will Welt” (“hold fast onto the world”) and be “ἐν

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 466 6/22/20 7:45 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 467  τῷ κόσμῳ” (“in the world” [142]), beholden to gladiatorial games (as reported in Augustine’s and determined by concerns of the “Fleisch” Confessions, book 6, chapter 8 [120–22]). Au­ (“flesh” [143]), or “σάρξ,” or believe and be “ἐκ erbach explicitly aligns Alypius with Peter τοῦ κόσμου” (“out of the world”) and live in when he juxtaposes the “triebhafte[s] We­ the “Geist,” or “πνεῦμα” (“spirit” [142]), albeit sen” (“instinctive urges”) and “heiße Begier” as an enfleshed historical human being. (“burning lust”) he falls prey to and Peter’s As in “Die Krisis des Glaubens,” so too debilitating “Verleumdung” (“denial” [70; in the Theologische Enzyklopädie lectures, Pe­ 69]). While in chapter 12, “L’Humaine Con­ ter’s dilemma is not addressed explicitly. But dition,” Montaigne’s “Selbsterforschung” the story of his fall into the world of creaturely (“examination of his self” [286; 300; trans. fear, insecurity, and doubt exemplifies the modified]) is described as driven by his ability kind of crisis moment that Bultmann was ad­ to take “Freude” (“delight”) in “des beliebigen dressing; faith’s precarity and the struggle to eigenen Lebens” (“his own random life” [289; believe in an absolute in the face of its mate­ 303]) rather than to succumb to its determi­ rial absence from the world would have been nations, the philosopher nevertheless does so, a particularly pressing issue as the curtain of in the midst of the “Belastungen, Problemen, National Socialism began to fall on Marburg und Abgründen” (“burdens, problems, and academic life. When, in Mimesis, Auerbach fo­ pitfalls”) and “grundsätzliche Ungewißheit” cuses neither on Peter’s role as faithful witness (“essential insecurity” [295; 309]) with which of the Transfiguration nor on his priority as the both he and Peter are confronted by their first to whom Christ resurrected appeared but, lives “mitten in der Welt” (“in the midst of rather, only on his doubt, he seems drawn to the world” [280; 294]). It is, however, the be- and fascinated by the fate of those who, when lie­big figure of Flaubert’s Emma Bovary in called to believe in something greater than Mimesis, chapter 18, who resembles Auer­ the threatening realities of the world in which bach’s Peter most closely. they live and with which they are confronted, The parallels between Emma’s and the cannot. When he later points to his reading of disciple’s despair are striking. Like Peter, Peter’s doubt as the subtext of his interest in re­ Emma awaits a “plötzliches Ereignis” (“sud­ ality as represented in texts in Mimesis overall, den event”) that will give her life a new “Wen­ Auerbach is making of the apostle’s dilemma dung” (“turn” [450; 483]). But, just as the a more general model of the painful recogni­ apostle’s expectation that the Messiah would tion of our entrapment in the determinations defeat his adversaries by means of a concrete of worldly life. act is disappointed, here too no “event” of the kind that Emma expects occurs. “Es geschieht nichts” (“Nothing happens” [456; 488]), and Conclusion: Peter’s Afterlives she is left, like Peter at the moment of the de­ Auerbach attends to the Petrine dilemma nial, to face her “schicksalhafte Verstrickung” not only in chapter 2 but also in subsequent (“fateful entanglement”) with her “Menschen­ chapters of Mimesis. Each of these chapters leben” (“human life” [457; 490]). Auerbach’s deserves its own reading. A short inventory description of Emma as she languishes “in includes, for example, his account in chap­ der tief­sten Provinz” (“in the depths of the ter 3, “The Arrest of Peter Valvomeres,” of the provinces” [450; 483]) likewise reminds us story of Augustine of Hippo’s friend Alypius, of the potentially “provinzielle” (“provin­ whom Auerbach describes as “ein beliebiger cial”) nature of Peter’s origins and life and Aly­pius” (“a random Alypius” [70; 69]), where of the confrontation with the serving girl the focus is on Alypius’s disastrous visit to the who calls him to account (45; 42). While the

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 467 6/22/20 7:45 PM 468 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

permanently low skies of Emma’s finitude are (“common philosophical terms”) that could­  intrinsically oppressive, unlike Peter’s, whose be used to describe the “existentieller Re­ oppressiveness derives from their implicit a­lis­mus” (“existential realism”) he finds in contrast to the higher domain of Jesus’s un­ Flau­bert’s text (448; my trans.). While this worldly power, in which Peter cannot believe, statement is edited out of the version of these the “ernsthafte Be­hand­lung der alltäglichen pages as they appear late in Mimesis, Auer­ Wirklichkeit” (“serious treatment of every­ bach’s earlier commitments to understand­ day reality”) occurs in both cases in texts in ing the “Tiefe[e des] Daseins” (“depths of which a “random” person from a “sozial tie­ Existence”) as they appear in the “Behand­ fer­ste­hende” “Men­schen­gruppe” (“socially lung” (“treatment”) of “ei­nes Menschenle­ inferior human group”) is depicted as rising bens im Gesamtbestand” (any given “human to the position of “problematisch-­existentelle” life” in its “totality”) in texts live on (“Über “Darstellung” (“problematic-­existential rep­ die ernste Nachahmung” 448; my trans.), resentation” [458; 491]). Auerbach’s reference comfortably nestled in the vocabulary of in chapter 18 to the difference of nineteenth-­ Mi­me­sis and in the substance of his read­ century French realism from “allem früheren ings. Poignantly, given the circumstances Realismus” (“all earlier realism”) notwith­ that he faced in Germany as he completed standing (452–53; 486), his treatment of Flau­ the essay on “ernste Nachahmung” (“serious bert’s Emma recalls nothing so much as his imitation”), Auerbach refers there to Emma’s reading of Mark’s Peter earlier in the book. dilemma as her “ganz[e] ausweglos[e] Men­ I have argued that Auerbach’s reading of schen­existenz” (“entire hopeless human the Gospel of Mark displays signs that, be­ existence which has no issue” [455; 488]), fore he left for Istanbul, he was in dialogue an existence that offers her only a “dumme with philosophers and theologians of exis­ Aus­weg­losigkeit” (“stupid issuelessness,” or tence like Bultmann in Marburg and that condition of there being no way out [448; these conversations left their mark on the 491]). As much as such formulations speak book that became Mimesis. In chapter 18, to the immediate, precarious conditions of Auerbach helpfully points to the continu­ Auerbach’s flight and exilic life at the time, ities between these earlier times and his later however, other elements ask us to recall his work when he states that the pages in Mime- years in Marburg and to consider the relation sis where he discusses Flaubert are indebted of his work to the theophilosophical debates to a “Vorarbeit” (“preliminary study”) that to which he was introduced there, debates was “unter diesem Ge­sichts­punkt” (“in line whose afterlives in Mimesis have long drawn with [his] present train of thought”); he will readers into the book. “wie­der­ho­len” (“repeat,” or “reproduce”) that study’s argument in the Mimesis chapter with only “geringen Ve­rän­de­run­gen und Kürzun­ gen” (“slight changes and abridgements” Notes [449; 482; trans. modified]). Auerbach is re­ ferring here to his 1937 essay “Über die ern­ I am grateful for comments on this essay that I received from Katherine Ibbett, Jayne Lewis, and Daniel Weidner, ste Nachahmung des All­täglichen” (“On the as well as an anonymous reader. I am particularly in­ Serious Imitation of the Everyday”), probably debted to a reading by Michael McGillen, whose insight­ one of the last essays he wrote before he fled. ful comments allowed me to make some of my claims In that essay, Auerbach explicitly offers the with greater nuance. Michelle O’Malley and Androm­ ache Karanika also provided assistance. The research for term “existentiell” (“existential”) as one of this article was supported by the National Humanities several “geläufige philosophische Termini” Center and by the American Academy in Berlin.

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 468 6/22/20 7:45 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 469  1. These works include Dante als Dichter der irdischen a reflection of Auerbach’s life. I review these and other Welt (1929; Dante: Poet of the Secular World), “Zur receptions of Auerbach’s Vichean philology in the book I Dante-­Feier” (1921; “On the Anniversary Celebration of am writing, “Auerbach’s Worlds,” a longer study of Auer- Dante”), “Dante und Vergil” (1931; “Dante and Virgil”), bach’s work of which this essay is a part. and Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlän- 9. On Auerbach’s background, see Barck 197–99. dischen Literatur (1946; Mimesis: The Representation of Matthias Bormuth kindly shared documents associated Reality in Western Literature). with Auerbach’s application in September 1935 for sup- 2. See the note that precedes Mimesis, chapter 1. port from the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Many of its chapters are based on preexile work. Com- Foreign Scholars, now located at the New York Public pare chapters 3, 7 through 10, 11, 15, 18, and 20 with the Library, where Auerbach describes his long professional essays collected in Time, History, and Literature—among association with “christlich-­theologische” (“Christian-­ them, the essays on Montaigne (“Der Schriftsteller Mon- theological”) circles, “be­son­ders katholische” (“especially taigne” [“Montaigne the Writer”]), Racine (“Racine und Catholic”) ones. On Auerbach’s relations to prominent die Leidenschaften“ [“Racine and the Passions”]), and Catholic figures, see Newman, “Auerbach’s Dante” and Rous­seau (“Über den historischen Ort Rousseaus” [“On “Force.” Rous­seau’s Place in History”]). Materials from his book 10. All citations from the Bible refer to The New Ox- on Dante, Dante als Dichter der irdischen Welt, likewise ford Annotated Bible. reappear in Mimesis. 11. For an early recognition that Auerbach can be 3. Here, Mimesis the book itself becomes the subject read in the context of existentialism, see Wel­lek. Gum- of the verb, “erreichen,” “to reach,” suggesting the text it- brecht notes Auerbach’s more or less personal “practical self is seeking to reach its readers. In citations of Mimesis, existentialism,” however (31). the first page number refers to the original German and 12. Auerbach wrote to Paul Binswanger on 3 March the second refers to the En­glish translation. 1930 of the warm welcome extended to him by the Mar- 4. The story is well known. After the National Social- burg theologians (“Briefe” [part 1] 163–64). Vialon reviews ists seized power, Auerbach, a professor of Romance lan- Auerbach’s lifelong friendship with Bultmann (“Erich Au- guages at the University of Marburg, fled first to Istanbul, erbach”). Work by the maverick Catholic existential theo- where, alongside several hundred other German Jew- logian Romano Guardini (1885–1968) was also important ish refugee academics, he spent eleven years living and for Auerbach’s thinking (Newman, “Force”). While most teaching the canon of “Western” literature under difficult scholarship on Auerbach fails to acknowledge this context, conditions (Ko­nuk). After the war, he went to the United a number of scholars have begun to tease out Auerbach’s States, landing first in a temporary job at Penn State Uni- relation to some of the figures involved; see Bormuth; El- versity and then, after a year at the Institute for Advanced sky, “Church History” and “Wissenschaft”; and Vialon, Study in Princeton, taking up a position at Yale Univer- “Erich Auerbach.” I am indebted to their work. sity, where he taught from 1950 until his death, in 1957. 13. Porter argues that Auerbach foregrounds the As a World War I veteran, Auerbach was not dismissed Abraham story in Mimesis because of the Nazi-­era stance from his position at the University of Marburg until 1935. of the “German Christians” on the teaching of this scene 5. Said; Apter, “Comparative Exile” and “Global Trans- in German schools (Introduction xl–xli). latio”; Mufti, “Auerbach in Istanbul”; Damrosch. Konuk 14. See Schmithals on Bultmann’s admission of his re- sets the record straight about Auerbach’s time in Istanbul. liance on Kierkegaard in connection with his work with 6. Porter, “Erich Auerbach” and “Old Testament Re- Heidegger and against Barth (71–72). alism”; Nichols, “Erich Auerbach: History” and “Erich 15. The first footnote in “Figura” is to conversations Auerbach: Figura”; Richards; Vialon, “Erich Auerbachs with the classicist Paul Friedländer (1882–1968 [“Fi­gura” Ver­borgenes Judentum”; Zakai. ( Ge­sammelte Aufsätze) 55; “Figura” (Time) 65]). Fried­län­ 7. Hutchinson; Kadir; Mufti, “Orientalism” and “­Erich der taught at Marburg until 1932 and then at Halle, but Auerbach”; Yashin. he was dismissed by the Nazis in 1935 and detained in a 8. For other broad overviews of Mimesis reception, see concentration camp until 1939. Bultmann’s efforts appar- Boden; Lindenberger. Auerbach’s name is often referred ently contributed to his release, whereupon Fried­län­der to in discussions of philology proper (Efal; Hui; War- left for the United States. Auerbach’s footnote thus indi- ren; Yashin), but the relation of the specifics of philol- cates an earlier, preexile date for the origins of “Figura.” ogy as conventionally understood to Vico’s work has not 16. Auerbach refers to Gunkel on page 10 of the yet been explored in adequate detail. Recently, Marcus German edition of Mimesis; the reference is deleted in and Woloch have each read Mimesis in a less personalist Trask’s translation. For background information on manner for the philological methods of close reading it Gun­kel’s impact on biblical scholarship, see Nicholson; performs; Rancière, “Corps,” and Jameson (e.g., 141–42, Weid­ner discusses Auerbach and Gunkel as exceptions to 153, 163–64, and 167) likewise tend to consider Mimesis’s the general disregard of biblical studies by literary stud- realism in terms of its textual strategies rather than as ies and vice versa.

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 469 6/22/20 7:46 PM 470 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

”Gunkel’s commentary in fact emphasizes that Ge- “existential” way (given “an existentialist interpretation .17  hor ­sam (“obedience”) is at the center of the story and that [28; 16]), he writes, as treating of “wie sich der Mensch it is the words of the principle figures in the text, not their selbst in seiner Welt versteht” (“man’s understanding of actions, that best suggest both God’s and Abraham’s “char- himself in the world in which he lives” [23; 10]). acter” (237–38). Auerbach thus follows Gunkel in focusing 23. In Mimesis, the terms used to describe Peter’s re- on the characters of God and Abraham in his reading. action—furchtsam, “full of fear,” and zittert, “trembles” 18. Auerbach’s attention to the way that the style of (45; 42)—recall Kierkegaard and point to the apostle as Hebrew Scripture mimics the terrors of obedience im- the new Abraham. posed on humanity by this “hidden God” recalls Goethe’s 24. See Mark 14.51–52 for the allegorically signifi- observations about Abraham’s “Prüfungen” (“trials”) in cant “young man . . . wearing the linen cloth” (Rancière, Dichtung und Wahrheit (Poetry and Truth), book 4 (137), “Corps” 90–96 and “Body” 73–79), Mark 14.66–71 for the which Auerbach, like all good Germans, would have increasingly public nature of Peter’s denial as an inversion known. Porter offers a different reading of this section of of the stages of the believer’s confession of faith, and Mark chapter 1 (“Old Testament Realism” 191–99). 14.72 for the symbolic third crowing of the cock. Jayne 19. This more Barthian way of reading the human-­ Lewis clarified for me how Auerbach drops the more for- divine relation in Hebrew Scripture could account for the mulaic moments of the Markan text and personalizes it. way Auerbach ultimately characterizes the fate of Old Tes- 25. This is my translation of schreckliche Selbsterfah- tament figures like Abraham as caught up in the “Pen­de­ rung (45), which Trask translates as “terrifying inner ex- laus­schlag” (“pendulum swing”) between “Unglück und . . . perience” (42). Erniedrigung” (“misfortune and humiliation”), on the one 26. The translations of quotations from “Krisis” here hand, and the “Erhöhung” (“elevation”) that goes with being and below are my own. “des persönlichen Umgangs und der per­sön­li­chen Inspira- 27. I am grateful to Michael McGillen for perceptive tion Gottes gewürdigt” (“deemed worthy of God’s personal commentary on the term beliebig. intervention and personal inspiration”), on the other (Mi- mesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit 21; Mimesis: The Repre- sentation 18). The term Pen­de­laus­schlag was first used in connection with the denial scene by Harnack in a 1922 essay Works Cited about Peter that Auerbach cites in his 1929 book Dante als Apter, Emily. “Comparative Exile: Competing Margins Dichter der ir­di­schen Welt (Dante: Poet of the Secular World in the History of Comparative Literature.” Compara- [20n10; 12n10]). Hatch has analyzed the Auerbach-­Harnack tive Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism, edited relation in a paper to which I am much indebted. by Charles Bernheimer, Johns Hopkins UP, 1995, 20. A separate argument can be made about Auerbach’s pp. 86–96. claims at the end of Mimesis, chapter 2 (51; 48)—that it is ——— . “ G l o b a l Translatio: The ‘Invention’ of Compara- actually the “Jewish”-Christian language and thematics tive Literature, Istanbul, 1933.” Critical Inquiry, vol. of the Gospel of Mark (rather than the “diaspora-­Jewish” 29, 2003, pp. 253–81. texts of Paul) that make it so powerful. He makes this ar- Auerbach, Erich. “Briefe an Paul Binswanger und Fritz gument in greater detail in “Figura” (1938 [“Figura” (Ge- Schalk.” Part 1, edited by Isolde Burr and Hans Rothe, sam­melte Aufsätze) 75–76; “Figura” (Time) 94–95]). Romanistisches Jahrbuch, vol. 60, 2010, pp. 145–90. 21. I am grateful to Michael McGillen for pointing out ——— . Dante als Dichter der irdischen Welt. 1929. De the way Auerbach paraphrases rather than quotes from Gruy ­ter, 2001. Mark here. ———. “Dante and Virgil.” 1931. Auerbach, Time, pp. 124–33. 22. Bultmann describes his signature demythologiza- ——— . Dante: Poet of the Secular World. Translated by tion thesis as a response to the times; in the “modern” Ralph Manheim, U of Chicago P, 1961. era, the “blindes Akzeptieren der neutestamentlichen My­tho­lo­gie” (“blind acceptance of . . . New Testament ———. “Epilegomena to Mimesis.” 1954. Translated by Jan M. Ziolkowski. Auerbach, Mimesis: The Represen- mythology” [“Neues Testament” 17; Kerygma 3–4]) that tation, pp. 559–74. includes the notion of a “mythische Unterwelt” (“mythi- cal underworld”) of Hell “unterhalb des Bo­dens, auf dem ———. “Epilegomena zu Mimesis.” 1954. Treml and unsere Füße stehen” (“beneath our feet” [18; 4]) and that Barck, pp. 466–79. “ein Gestorbener wieder zum phy­si­schen Leben er­weckt ———. “Figura.” 1938. Auerbach, Gesammelte Aufsätze, wurde” (“a dead person” could be “resuscitat[ed]” [21; pp. 55–92. 8]) is no longer tenable. To appeal to the modern faith- ———. “Figura.” 1938. Auerbach, Time, pp. 65–113. ful, such stories must be dislodged from their historical ——— . Gesammelte Aufsätze zur romanischen Philologie. origins in “jüdischen Apokalyptik und . . . gnostischen Francke, 1967. Er­lö­sungs­my­thos” (“Jewish apocalyptic and . . . Gnos- ———. “Giambattista Vico and the Idea of Philology.” tic redemption myths” [27; 15]) and “interpreted” in an 1936. Auerbach, Time, pp. 24–35.

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 470 6/22/20 7:46 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 471  ———. Materials Submitted to the Emergency Commit- ———. “Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien.” tee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, New York 4th ed. 1961. Bultmann, Glauben, vol. 4, pp. 1–41. Public Library, Manuscripts and Archives Division, ———. “Die Eschatologie des Johannes-­Evangelium.” Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations, “Auerbach, 1928. Bultmann, Glauben, vol. 1, 134–52. ­Erich 1934–1943,” box 38, folder 55. ———. “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein ——— . Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abend- Jesu und das Petrus-Bekenntnis.” 1919–20. Exegetica: ländischen Literatur. 1946. Francke, 2001. Auf­sätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, ed- ——— . Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in West- ited by Erich Dinkler, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ern Literature. 1953. Introduction by Edward W. 1967, pp. 1–9. Said, translated by Willard R. Trask, Princeton UP, ——— . Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Van- 2003. denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1921. ———. “Montaigne the Writer.” 1932. Auerbach, Time, ——— . Glauben und Verstehen, Gesammelte Aufsätze. pp. 200–14. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1961. 4 vols. ———. “On Rousseau’s Place in History.” 1932. Auerbach, ——— . The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated Time, pp. 246–52. by John Marsh. 1931. 2nd ed., Harper and Row, Pub- ———. “On the Anniversary Celebration of Dante.” 1921. lishers, 1968. Auerbach, Time, pp. 121–23. ——— . Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. Edited ———. “Racine and the Passions.” 1927. Auerbach, Time, by Hans Werner Bartsch, Cloister Library / Harper pp. 236–45. and Row, 1961. ———. “Racine und die Leidenschaften.” Auerbach, Ge- ———. “Kirche und Lehre im Neuen Testament.” 1929. sam­melte Aufsätze, pp. 196–203. Bult ­mann, Glauben, vol. 1, pp. 153–87. ———. “Der Schriftsteller Montaigne.” 1932. Gesammelte ———. “Die Krisis des Glaubens.” 1931. Bultmann, Glau- Auf­sätze zur romanischen Philologie, Francke, 1967, ben, pp. 1–19. pp. 184–95. ———. “Neues Testament und Mythologie.” Kerygma und ———. “The Three Traits of Dante’s Poetry.” 1948. Auer- Mythos: Ein theologisches Gespräch, Reich und Heid­ bach, Time, pp. 188–99. rich / Evangelischer Verlag, 1948, pp. 15–53. ——— . Time, History, and Literature: Selected Essays of ———. “The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem.” 1926. Erich Auerbach. Edited by James I. Porter, translated The Journal of Religion, vol. 6, no. 4, 1926, pp. 337–62. by Jane O. Newman, Princeton UP, 2014. ——— . The Presence of Eternity: History and Eschatology: ———. “Über den historischen Ort Rousseaus.” 1932. The Gifford Lectures, 1955. Harper and Brothers, 1957. Auer ­bach, Gesammelte Aufsätze, pp. 291–95. ——— . Theologische Enzyklopädie. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Sie­ ———. “Über die ernste Nachahmung des Alltäglichen.” beck), 1984. 1937. Treml and Barck, pp. 439–65. ———. “Welchen Sinn hat es, von Gott zu reden?” 1925. Augustine. Confessions. Translated by R. S. Pine-­Coffin, Bult ­mann, Glauben, vol. 1, pp. 26–37. Penguin Books, 1961. Cho, Hyonwon. “Vergangenes Vergängnis: Für eine Phi­ Barck, Karlheinz. “Erich Auerbach in Berlin: Spu­ren­sich­ loo ­l ­gie des Stattdessen.“ Arcadia, vol. 52, no. 1, 2017, e­rung und ein Porträt.” Treml and Barck, pp. 195–214. pp. 74–94. Baring, Edward. Converts to the Real: Catholicism and Coyne, Ryan. “A Difficult Proximity: The Figure of Au- the Making of Continental Philosophy. Harvard UP, gustine in Heidegger’s Path.” The Journal of Religion, 2019. vol. 91, no. 3, 2011, pp. 365–96. Barth, Karl. Der Römerbrief 1922. Theologischer Verlag Damrosch, David. “Auerbach in Exile.” Comparative Lit- Zürich, 2008. erature, vol. 47, no. 2, 1995, pp. 97–117. “Beliebig.” Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und De Vries, Hent. “The Kierkegaardian Moment: Dialecti- Wilhelm Grimm, Trier Center for Digital Humani- cal Theology and Its Aftermath.” Modern Language ties, woerterbuchnetz​.de/​cgi​-bin/​WBNetz/​wbgui_​py​ Notes, vol. 128, no. 5, 2013, pp. 1083–114. ?sigle =​ DWB&​ sigle=​ DWB&​ mode=​ Vernetzung&​ lemid​ Efal, Adi. Figural Philology: Panofsky and the Science of =GB03712 ​#XGB03712. Things. Bloomsbury, 2016. Boden, Petra. “Philologie als Wissenschaft: Korrespon- Elsky, Martin. “Church History and the Cultural Geogra- denzen und Kontroversen zur Mimesis.” Treml and phy of Erich Auerbach: Europe and Its Eastern Other.” Barck, pp. 125–52. Opening the Borders: Inclusivity in Early Modern Stud- Bormuth, Matthias. “Menschenkunde zwischen Menschen-­ ies: Essays in Honor of James V. Mirollo, edited by Pe- Auerbach und Löwith.” Treml and Barck, pp. 82–104. ter C. Herman, U of Delaware P, 1999, pp. 324–49. Bultmann, Rudolf. “The Crisis of Faith.” 1931. Interpret- ———. “Wissenschaft und nationale Identität: Erich Auer- ing Faith for the Modern Era, translated by Roger A. bachs figurale Interpretation als Herausforderung an Johnson, Collins, 1987, pp. 240–56. eine liberale Religion.” Marburger Hermeneutik zwi­schen

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 471 6/22/20 7:46 PM 472 The Gospel according to Auerbach [ PMLA

Tradition und Krise, edited by Matthias Bormuth and Krystal, Arthur. “The Book of Books: Erich Auerbach  Ulrich von Bulow, Wallstein Verlag, 2008, pp. 207–22. and the Making of Mimesis.” The New Yorker, 9 Dec. Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. 1930. 2013, pp. 83–88. Translated and edited by James Strachey, W. W. Nor- Landauer, Carl. “Auerbach’s Performance and the Ameri- ton, 1961. can Academy; or, How New Haven Stole the Idea of Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Dichtung und Wahrheit. Mimesis.” Literary History and the Challenge of Phi- Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag / C. H. Beck’sche lology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, edited by Seth Ver­lags­buch­hand­lung, 1981. Vol. 9 and and vol. 10 Lerer, Stanford UP, 1996, pp. 179–94. (pp. 7–187) of Werke: Hamburger Ausgabe. Lerer, Seth. “Auerbach’s Shakespeare.” Philological Quar- Gordon, Peter E. “Weimar Theology: From Historicism terly, vol. 90, 2011, pp. 21–44. to Crisis.” Weimar Thought: A Contested Legacy, ed- Lindenberger, Herbert. “Aneignungen von Auerbach: ited by Gordon and John P. McCormick, Princeton Von Said zum Postkolonialismus.” Treml and Barck, UP, 2013, pp. 150–78. pp. 357–70. Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. “‘Pathos of the Earthly Progress’: Marcus, Sharon. “Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis and the Erich Auerbach’s Everydays.” Literary History and the Value of Scale.” Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 77, Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach, no. 3, 2016, pp. 297–319. edited by Seth Lerer, Stanford UP, 1996, pp. 13–35. Montaigne, Michel de. The Complete Essays of Montaigne. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis übersetzt und erklärt von 1588. Translated by Donald M. Frame, Stanford UP, Her­mann Gunkel. 1901. 4th ed. Vandenhoeck und 1957. Ru ­precht, 1917. Mufti, Aamir R. “Auerbach in Istanbul: Edward Said, Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. “Altes Testament und exis- Secular Criticism, and the Question of Minority Cul- tentiale Interpretation.” Rudolf Bultmanns Werk und ture.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 25, 1998, pp. 95–125. Wir ­kung, edited by Bernd Jaspert, Wissenschaftliche ———. “Erich Auerbach and the Death and Life of World Buch­ge­sellschaft, 1984, pp. 332–47. Literature.” Routledge Companion to World Litera- Hacohen, Malachi. “Typology and the Holocaust: Erich ture, edited by Theo D’haen et al., Routledge, 2012, Auerbach and Judeo-­Christian Europe.” Religions, pp. 71–80. vol. 3, 2012, pp. 600–45. MDPI, www.​ mdpi.​ com/2​ 077​ ———. “Orientalism and the Institution of World Litera- -1444/ ​3/​3/​600/​htm. tures.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 36, 2010, pp. 458–93. Harbsmeier, Eberhard. “Karl Barth und Søren Kierke­ The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Edited by Michael D. gaard.” Karl Barths Theologie als europäisches Ereig- Coogan, Oxford UP, 2007. nis, edited by Martin Leiner and Michael Trowitzsch, Newman, Jane O. “Auerbach’s Dante: Poetical Theology Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2008, pp. 317–30. as a Point of Departure for a Philology of World Lit- Harnack, Adolf von. “Die Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu, der erature.” Approaches to World Literature, edited by Bericht des Paulus (I. Kor. 15, 3 ff.) und die beiden Chris­ Joa­chim Küpper, De Gruyter, 2013, pp. 39–58. tus­visionen des Petrus.” Sitzungsberichte der Preus­si­schen ———. “Force and Justice: Auerbach’s Pascal.” Political Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 7, 1922, pp. 62–80. Theology and Early Modernity, edited by Julia Rein- Hatch, Laura. “Auerbach’s Pendulation: The Pendulum as hard Lupton and Graham Hammill, U of Chicago P, Literary Form.” 2014. Manuscript. 2012, pp. 159–80. Hui, Andrew. “The Many Returns of Philology: A State Nichols, Stephen G. “Erich Auerbach: Figura: The Hidden of the Field Report.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Agenda.” Free University, Berlin, 9 May 2017. Address. vol. 78, no. 1, 2017, pp. 137–56. ———. “Erich Auerbach: History, Literature, and Jewish Hutchinson, Ben. “Late Reading: Erich Auerbach and the Philosophy.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch, vol. 58, 2007, Spätboot of Comparative Literature.” Comparative pp. 166–85. Critical Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, May 2017, pp. 69–85. Nicholson, Ernest W. “Hermann Gunkel as a Pioneer of Jameson, Fredric. The Antinomies of Realism. Verso, 2013. Modern Old Testament Study.” Genesis, by Hermann Kadir, Djelal. “Auerbach’s Scar.” Memos from the Be- Gunkel. 1901. Translated by Mark E. Biddle, Mercer sieged City: Lifelines for Cultural Sustainability, Stan- UP, 1997, pp. 3–9. ford UP, 2011, pp. 19–40. Porter, James I. “Erich Auerbach and the Judaizing of Kierkegaard, Søren. Furcht und Zittern: Dialektische Ly­rik. Philology.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 35, 2008, pp. 115–47. 1843. Translated by H. C. Ketels, A. Deichert, 1882. ———. Introduction. Auerbach, Time, pp. ix–xlv. Köhler, Ludwig. “The Meaning and Possibilities of ‘Form­ ———. “Old Testament Realism in the Writings of Erich ge ­schichte.’” The Journal of Religion, vol. 8, no. 4, Auerbach.” Jews and the Ends of Theory, edited by 1928, pp. 603–15. Shai Ginsburg et al., Fordham UP, 2019, pp. 187–224. Konuk, Kader. East West Mimesis: Auerbach in Turkey. Rancière, Jacques. “The Body of the Letter: Bible, Epic, Stanford UP, 2010. Novel.” The Flesh of Words: The Politics of Writing.

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 472 6/22/20 7:46 PM 135.3 ] Jane O. Newman 473  1998. Translated by Charlotte Mandell, Stanford UP, ———. “Erich Auerbach und Rudolf Bultmann: Probleme 2004, pp. 71–93. abendländischer Geschichtsdeutung.” Marburger ———. “Le corps de la lettre: Bible, épopée, roman.” La Hermeneutik zwischen Tradition und Krise, edited by chair des mots : Politiques de l’écriture, Galilée, 1998, Matthias Bormuth and Ulrich von Bulow, Wallstein pp. 87–113. Verlag, 2008, pp. 176–206. ——— . Figures de l’histoire. Presses Universitaires de ———. “Erich Auerbachs Verborgenes Judentum und sein France, 2012. Istanbuler Nachruf auf den Orientalisten Karl Süß­ ——— . Figures of History. 2012. Translated by Julie Rose, heim.” Kalonymos: Beiträge zur deutsch-­jüdischen Polity Press, 2014. Ge­schichte an dem Salomon Steinheim-­Institut an der Richards, Earl Jeffrey. “Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis as a Universität Duisberg-­Essen, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, pp. 3–9. Meditation on the Shoah.” German Politics and Soci- Von Koppenfels, Martin. “Auerbachs Ernst.” Poetica, ety, vol. 59, no. 2, Summer 2001, pp. 62–91. vol. 45, nos. 1–2, 2013, pp. 183–203. Rohls, Jan. “Rudolf Bultmanns frühe Marburger Theolo­ Warren, Michelle R. “Introduction: Relating Philology, gie.” Die Philipps-­Universität Marburg zwischen Kai­ Practicing Humanism.” PMLA, vol. 125, no. 2, Mar. ser­reich und Nationalsozialismus, edited by Gunter 2010, pp. 283–88. Hollenberg and Aloys Schwersmann, Verein für Hes­ Weidner, Daniel. “Von der Literaturgeschichte zur Li­te­ si­sche Geschichte und Landeskunde, 2006, pp. 63–83. ra­tur­wissenschaft: Neuere Philologien und die Bibel Said, Edward W. “Secular Criticism.” Introduction. The seit Hermann Gunkel.” Hermann Gunkel Revisited: World, the Text, and the Critic, Harvard UP, 1983, Literatur- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien, edited pp. 1–30. by Ute E. Eisen and Erhard S. Gerstenberger, LIT Ver­ Schmithals, Walter. “Ein Brief Rudolf Bultmanns an Er­ lag, 2010, pp. 83–100. ich Foerster.” Rudolf Bultmanns Werk und Wirkung, Wellek, René. “Auerbach’s Special Realism.” The Kenyon edited by Bernd Jaspert, Wissenschaftliche Buchge­ Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 1954, pp. 299–307. sellschaft, 1984, pp. 70–80. Woloch, Alex. “Form and Representation in Auerbach’s Schreiber, Gerhard. “Christoph Schrempf: The ‘Swabian Mimesis.” Affirmations: Of the Modern, Winter 2014, Socrates’ as Translator of Kierkegaard.” German Prot- pp. 110–27. estant Theology, edited by Jon Stewart, Ashgate Pub­ Wurgaft, Benjamin Aldes. “The Uses of Walter: Walter lishing, 2012, pp. 275–320. Tome 1 of Kierkegaard’s Benjamin and the Counterfactual Imagination.” His- Influence on Theology. tory and Theory, vol. 49, Oct. 2010, pp. 361–83. Treml, Martin, and Karlheinz Barck, editors. Erich Auer­ Yashin, V. N. “Euro(tro)pology: Philology, World Litera­ bach: Geschichte und Aktualität eines europäischen ture, and the Legacy of Erich Auerbach.” The Yearbook Phio ­lo­l ­gen. Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2007. of Comparative Literature, vol. 57, 2011, pp. 269–90. Vialon, Martin. “Die Stimme Dantes und ihre Resonanz: Zakai, Avihu. Erich Auerbach and the Crisis of German Zu einem bisher unbekannten Vortrag Erich Auer­ Philology: The Humanist Tradition in Peril. Springer, bachs aus dem Jahr 1948.” Treml and Barck, pp. 46–56. 2016.

Newman_135-3_pp2.indd 473 6/22/20 7:46 PM