Abstract:

On the basis of historical contexts and representative books, the paper indicates why Ernst Robert Curtius and Erich Auerbach put forward different responses to the German crisis of humanism and philology which happened at the beginning of the 20th century. The former turned to medieval studies in order to construct a meaningful literary and cultural alternative to the Aryan philology, volkische mysticism and Nazi historiography that opposed traditional German Bildung, humanism, and enlightenment. The latter looked for a unity founded largely on Judaeo-Christian heritage, or the Scriptures, in which through figural interpretation, the Old Testament was woven throughout the fabric of European culture, literature and history. Both of them strove to re-establish the unity of European civilization, shattered by Nazi racial, ethnological divisiveness. Besides, the difference between Curtius and Auerbach was not related solely to their contrasting views about philology and historicism but more crucially to their existential condition: the difference between Aryans and Semites in an age of terror and tyranny when the former were permitted to live, the latter were condemned to die.

Keywords: German philology; Ernst Robert Curtius; Erich Auerbach; topos; figura

摘要：

本文从库尔提乌斯与奥尔巴赫所处的历史时代和他们的代表作,分析了二者面对20世纪初德国人文主义与语文学危机时,为何提出了不同的应对之策。库尔提乌斯从罗曼研究和现代欧洲文学研究,转向拉丁中世纪,以期构建有意义的文学文化方案,从而替代有违传统德国教育、人文主义、启蒙思想的雅利安语文学、种族神秘主义和纳粹史学。奥尔巴赫在流亡期间,把目光转向了比较文学,以其西方文学“统一性”专论,将《圣经•旧约》拉回到欧洲人文主义文化中心,拿起共同的西方犹太—基督教传统的旌旗。无论如何,两人都致力重建被纳粹的种族与人种分离措施打得四分五裂的欧洲文明统一性。

关键词: 德国语文学, 库尔提乌斯, 奥尔巴赫, 主题, 辞彩