Page - 71 - in Europäische Bild- und Buchkultur im 13. Jahrhundert

71 thE Emotional charGE and humanistic EffEct of thE crucifixion Despite Erich Auerbach’s pioneering essay Die Narbe des Odysseus,55 misconcep- tions about the nature of mimesis in relation to metaphysics can still cloud our perception of works of art. Auerbach suggested that the power of mimesis is pre- cisely located in the creation of feelings that lead to understanding and knowledge of ourselves. Auerbach’s well-known essay brilliantly juxtaposes two methods of literary mimesis, one ‘externalized [through] uniformly illuminated phenomena at a definite time and in a definite place, connected together without lacunae in a per- petual foreground; thoughts and feelings completely expressed events taking place in a leisurely fashion and with very little [sense of] suspense’. The other sees the externalisation of only so much of the phenomena necessary for the narrative, ‘all else left in obscurity; the decisive points of the narrative alone are emphasised, what lies between is non-existent; time and place are unified and call for interpretation …’. Mimesis, so often seen in terms of the interpretation of Aristotle’s Poetics alone must, however, also ‘express the mutations in social reality’ that historical move- ment tells us from numerous empirical tests has happened over time.56 Despite the methodological utility of Freedberg’s anthropological approach, which reminds us that there is a dark side to unleashing emotions, and Marion’s sensitive, and appropriate distinctions between Fine Art and ‘the painters of “series”, “periods” or “manners,”’, as he puts it, it is the visualisation of the humanity of Christ that imbibes these works of art with a new meaning. It is a meaning which would even- tually change the course of western European society itself. Marion’s suggestion that the religious meaning of a painting effaces its own visuality appears to fly in the face of the power of these paintings to affect us.57 They embody what can only be called metaphysical truths as part of our own, usually subliminal, struggle to face the world without succumbing to circular ontological arguments. Photo rights: Figs. 1, 13: By kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London; fig. 2: The Syndics of The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; figs. 3, 10, 11, 17–19: The British Li- brary Board (Creative Commons CCo 1.0 Universal Domain Dedication); fig. 4: The Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge; figs. 5, 9: photos by the author; fig. 6: English Heritage; fig. 7: courtesy of the University Librarian and Director, The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester; fig. 8: Warden and Fellows of All Souls College, Oxford; fig. 12: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris; fig. 14: Victoria and Albert Museum, London; fig. 15: picture collection of the Institute of Art History and Pächt Archive in Vienna; fig. 16: Svein Wiik. 55 Erich Auerbach: Odysseus’ Scar. In: Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, trans. Willard R. Trask, Princeton 1953, pp. 3–23. Originally published as: Mi- mesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur, Bern 1946, pp. 7–30. 56 Gunter Gebauer / Christoph Wulf: Mimesis: Culture-Art-Society, trans. Don Reneau, Berkeley 1995, p. 9. 57 Paul Crowther: How Pictures Complete Us: the Beautiful, the Sublime and the Devine. Stanford 2016, p. 158.