Literary history as a provocation of literary studies

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of literature as a provocation of literary studies is the title of the published, substantially expanded version of the inaugural public lecture by Hans Robert Jauß at the University of Konstanz , which he held on April 13, 1967 to celebrate the 60th birthday of the rector of the university, Gerhard Hess . With this lecture, Jauß founded the so-called Konstanz School, a movement in reception research and the basis of German reception aesthetics .

First edition of the greatly expanded inaugural lecture from April 13, 1967 by Hans Robert Jauß. It appeared in 1967 as No. 3 of the series Konstanz University Speeches in Konstanz published by Gerhard Hess in the publishing house of the Konstanz University Press and Publishing Company.

Inaugural lecture and written publication

Jauß's lecture was entitled What does it mean and at what end does one study literary history? who alludes to Friedrich Schiller's inaugural lecture in Jena in 1789: What does it mean and at what end does one study universal history? Schiller's lecture and the concept of universal history play a significant role in Jauß 'text.

For the written publication in the series of Konstanz University Speeches in 1967, the new title History of Literature was chosen as a provocation of literary studies and, as Jauss says in a footnote: "has been considerably expanded by expanding my theses". After two editions in this context, in 1967 and 1969, an anthology was published in the edition suhrkamp in 1970 with the title Literary History as Provocation , which, in addition to the second edition of Literary History as a Provocation of Literary Studies, contained four further texts by Jauß: Literary Tradition and present consciousness of modernity (first published in 1965), Schlegel and Schiller's replica to the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (first published in 1967), The End of the Art Period - Aspects of the Literary Revolution in Heine, Hugo and Stendhal (original article) and the history of art and history (Presentation of a colloquium in 1970). These are revised versions; the compilation was made by Jauß himself.

The Suhrkamp volume ( edition Suhrkamp No. 418) appeared in ten editions until 1992. Jauß 'text has been translated into over 20 languages. Another print appeared in: Rainer Warning (Ed.): Reception aesthetics. Theory and Practice (= university paperbacks , No. 303). Fink, Munich 1975, ISBN 3-7705-1053-4 .

theses

Jauß criticizes the traditional approach of literary history, always stringing together epochs without relating them to one another. It is no wonder that literary history is falling into oblivion. It should be a pure synchrony for two reasons illusory anyway: on the one hand always several literary tendencies exist simultaneously in every era, in turn, were all due for themselves from their particular history (Special History) - Jauss takes here to the understanding of history of the historian Siegfried Kracauer back who, in his treatise “Time and History”, states the factual non-simultaneity of the simultaneity for the reason mentioned, and transfers it to literary phenomena; on the other hand, Jauß refers to the Russian formalists Juri Tynjanow and Roman Jakobson , assuming that “every synchronous system must contain its past and its future as inseparable structural elements”, therefore “implies the synchronous cut through the literary production of a historical one Further cuts in the before and after of the diachrony are necessary at the point in time. “Literarity means double opposition: on the synchronous level between poetic and practical language (literary work vs. non-fiction) and on the diachronic level to what is specified in the genre in the literary series.

The sole consideration of the production and presentation aesthetics shortens the literature by its reception and effect dimensions. This, however, is part of the aesthetic character and social function of a work, and the reader is the addressee for whom the work is primarily intended. This has two implications: firstly, reading always means an aesthetic comparison with works that are already known, secondly, the understanding of the first readers changes over the generations and thus decides on the meaning and aesthetic rank of the work.

Jauß bases his aesthetic reception theory, which is ultimately intended to justify an academic study of literary history, on seven theses:

Thesis 1

The historicity of literature is based on the previous experience of the literary work by its readers. A literary work does not offer every reader the same access at all times. Literary history describes a constant process of reception and production: the reader updates the text, the critic reflects on it, the author produces a new text. The context of events in literature is conveyed in the expectation horizon of the literary experience of contemporary and later readers.

Thesis 2

The history of literature must describe the reception and effect of a work in the objectifiable reference system of expectations that results for each work from the prior understanding of the genre and the known texts. Works that first evoke conventions of genre, style or form and then break them form the ideal case of objectifiability. The specific disposition of the first audience can be determined based on three factors:

  1. known norms / genre poetics,
  2. Relationships with well-known works,
  3. Contrast between fiction and reality.

The reader receives the work both with his literary horizon of expectation and with his own life experience.

Thesis 3

An aesthetic distance is created between the given horizon of expectations and the change in horizon in the new work. It becomes visible in the spectrum of audience reactions. Exceeding, refuting, or redeeming public expectations are criteria for the aesthetic value of a work. The aesthetic distance determines the artistic character. It can disappear for future readers if the new techniques are used over and over again and become familiar with them. Some works do not yet have a specific audience at the time of publication.

Thesis 4

The reconstruction of the expectations of the first audience makes it possible to ask the question to which the text was an answer, and thus to infer the reception of the audience at the time. Works that are implicitly and explicitly assumed can serve as a background. The sum of the judgments of all readers results in the “judgment of the centuries” , the virtual meaning of the work. Classical works were also innovative when they were published. The knowledge transfer of the work of art can take place not only through present, but also through anticipated experience, new questions and visual models.

Thesis 5

The importance of a literary work requires placement in its literary series. The next work in the series can solve formal or moral problems that the previous one left open, and in turn give up new problems. Jauß describes the course of literary evolution as a recurring sequence:

Innovation → Peak → Reproduction → Automation → Replacement by a new genre

Literary series form the works of an author, a style, a genre or even different genres. The importance of a work presupposes innovation. The interpreter's own experience is necessary. The distance between the current and the virtual meaning of a work is variable, sometimes it takes a long time to reconcile. Occasionally there are renaissances (new receptions) of old works against a changed reception background.

Thesis 6

The variety of simultaneous works can be broken down into structures using synchronous cuts. There are no homogeneous literary series. The simultaneous literature is heterogeneous from a production aesthetic perspective, but from a reception aesthetic perspective is uniformly meaningful. Constant factors (“syntax”) are genres, styles, rhetorical figures. Variable factors (“semantics”) are topics, motifs and images. It is now the task of literary history to find significant intersections.

Thesis 7

Literary history must be seen in connection with general history: the social relevance of literature becomes clear when the literary experience of the reader enters the horizon of expectations of his life practice and changes it. Jauß emphasizes the societal function of literature, which can be read, for example, from moral values. The literary work can pose moral questions to the reader, the answers of which society owes him.

Conclusion

The specific achievement of literature in social existence is to be sought where literature does not merge into the function of the performing arts. The gap between literature and history, or between aesthetic and historical knowledge, can be bridged if, in the course of literary evolution, the history of literature reveals the social-building function that literature has.

reception

Jauß 'text was understood as the "original manifesto" and "program script" of the new school of reception aesthetics. It achieved tremendous dissemination and a strong response from the scientific community. In 2011, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht described him as “one of the great successes in the history of the German humanities”. The American comparativeist and Germanist Robert C. Holub described this success in The German Quarterly in 1982: "Since Hans Robert Jauß '' provocation 'of literary studies in 1967, almost every critical school of thought and almost every discipline of literature has responded to his appeal." Of course, the response has not yet reached American literary studies.

expenditure

  • Jauß, Hans Robert: History of literature as a provocation of literary studies (= Konstanz University Speeches No. 3). Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz 1967 (2nd edition 1969).
  • Jauß, Hans Robert: History of literature as a provocation of literary studies. In: ders .: History of literature as a provocation (= edition Suhrkamp No. 418). Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1970. pp. 144-207. (Smaller additions compared to the first edition from 1967).

literature

  • Richard Murphy: History of Literature as a Provocation of Literary Studies . In: Rolf Günter Renner, Engelbert Habekost (ed.): Lexicon of literary theoretical works (= Kröner's pocket edition . Volume 425). Kröner, Stuttgart 1995, ISBN 3-520-42501-7 , pp. 220-221.
  • Rainer Warning (Ed.): Reception Aesthetics. Theory and Practice (= university paperbacks , No. 303). Fink, Munich 1975, ISBN 3-7705-1053-4 .

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Hans Robert Jauß: Foreword. In: ders .: History of literature as a provocation (= edition Suhrkamp No. 418). Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1970. pp. 7-10.
  2. ^ Entry of the 10th edition 1992 in the German National Library .
  3. ↑ Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht : My teacher, the man from the SS . In: Die ZEIT , April 7, 2011. Ottmar Ette: The Jauss case. Paths of Understanding in a Future of Philology . Kadmos, Berlin 2016, p. 47.
  4. ↑ Jauß, Hans Robert. Literary history as a provocation (= edition Suhrkamp No. 418). Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1970, p. 195.
  5. ↑ Jauß, Hans Robert. Literary history as a provocation (= edition Suhrkamp No. 418). Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. 1970. P. 197.
  6. ↑ Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht: My teacher, the man from the SS . In: Die ZEIT of April 7, 2011.
  7. ↑ Ottmar Ette: The Jauß case . Kadmos, Berlin 2016, p. 47.
  8. ↑ Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht: My teacher, the man from the SS . In: Die ZEIT of April 7, 2011.
  9. ^ Robert C. Holub: Trends in Literary Theory: The American Reception of Reception Theory . In: The German Quarterly , vol. 55 (1982), issue 1, pp. 80-96; here: p. 81.