preview

Similarities Between The Odyssey And The Bible

Good Essays

Keats and Auerbach are not necessarily at odds with each other but rather they differ in opinion in some literary aspects. Keats addresses imagination as a form of truth stating that what an individual views as beautiful is truth and what is true, be it pain or horror also possesses its own beauty. Auerbach writes about how “reality”, the antithesis of imagination, is depicted in western literature and compares how The Odyssey does not need to be considered true to affect the realism of the story whereas The Bible relies heavily on being perceived as truth to construct its reality. The main opposition between the two writers is Auerbach’s need to interpret and understand and Keats’ desire not to look for ‘the truth’ but to experience it in …show more content…

In the opening chapter ‘Odysseys’ scar’ Auerbach contrasts Homer’s expressive, emotional style of realism in which the epic Odyssey is set with the Old Testament’s more regular, every day, socio-historical interpretation of the world, in which the ‘Binding of Isaac’ is set. Auerbach looks at the presentation of ‘reality’ across several literary works. He does this by comparing the fictional Odyssey with the “non-fictional” Bible. Auerbach views The Odyssey as entertainment saying it will “make us forget our own Reality for a few hours” , the fact that it creates something that isn’t “our Reality” shows Homer was not interested in creating a truthful story which is why Auerbach refers to him as a “harmless liar … who lied to give pleasure” , the word “liar” is an interesting choice as it has several connotations of treachery, deceitfulness, and even evil but the pre-modifying adjective “harmless” takes away the harshness of the accusation. Auerbach looks at The Bible as “Religious Doctrine” saying it tries to “make us fit our own life into its world” in contrast to The Odyssey, The Bible tries to construct its reality as our own rather than one created for a story. The Bible imposes “tyrannical” truth where the realism of the story relies on it being viewed as truth. Auerbach also refers to the Elohist as a “political liar with a definite end …show more content…

This shows that Auerbach’s intention is to understand and analyse these texts from the past so he can decipher the meaning behind the words. Keats has almost the opposite view, he lives in the moment “I look not for it if it be not in the present hour” , this idea echoes his thoughts on beauty and truth and also that of sensations, and Keats refuses to look for meaning he instead simply experiences what he experiences or at least tries to. Whereas Auerbach is analytically searching for meaning in what he sees. Both are stereotypical of their types of writing, the former a Romantic poet and the latter a literary critic. According to Auerbach Homer’s true motivation lay in the rhetorical tradition of a poet trying to “Represent phenomena in a fully externalized form, visible, and palpable in all their parts” . The idea of “phenomena” relates closely to Keats’ ideas of imagination, as the former means a remarkable event or object and the other usually relates to the mental creation of something phenomenal. Whereas The Elohist was motivated by a belief in religion and trying to convey their reality of truth. Auerbach also surprisingly states “the relation of the Elohist to the truth of his story still remains a far more

Get Access