Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:51:50.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. I. Mints and the Representation of Reality in History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Alan Kimball
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essay
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 715 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Auerbach, Erich, in Mimesis: Dargestellte Werklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur (Bern and Munich, 1967)Google Scholar, defines figura as a representation of reality which, without sacrificing any of its “concreteness, ” “establishes the interrelationship between two events or individuals, when one signifies not only itself, but simultaneously a second, or another, which in turn contains or fulfills the first. The two poles of the figura are separated in time, but as real events or persons they lie on a chronological plane. Both are contained within that flowing stream which is historical life, but the understanding, intellectus spiritualis, of their interrelationship is transformed into a spiritual act.” The citation is from the Russian translation which just appeared: Mimesis: Izobrazhenie deistvitel'nosti v sapadnoevropeiskoi literature (Moscow, 1976), p. 90.

2. Steven Marcus (Engels, Manchester, and the Working Class) has recently observed that the dilemma of middle-class revolutionists in ironic alliance with the proletariat can be traced back at least to Marx and Engels. Engels asserted that the more “intelligent” of the bourgeoisie could become a part of the workers movement as a result of pure rational choice. Marcus observes that this notion bears strong resemblance to Matthew Arnold's idea of “Culture”: “A notion of an ideal allegiance that transcends conflict and class interest, and binds humanity together in a society that has gone beyond politics” (see A. J. P. Taylor's review article, Times Literary Supplement, October 25, 1974, p. 1181).

3. My own reading of the nearly 250 biographies and autobiographies of leading Bolshevik activists in the October Revolution, published in Entsiklopedicheskii slovar1 russkogo bibliograficheskogo instituta Granat, vol. 41, parts 1-3, confirms the estimate of Haupt, Georges and Marie, J. J., eds., The Makers of the Russian Revolution (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar