Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory
Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory
复制标题
文学史对文学理论的挑战
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1970
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Benzinger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. R. Jauss;E. Benzinger
把马克思主义学派和形式主义学派之间悬而未决的争论再一次提出来。我试图弥合文学和历史之间、历史和美学方法之间的鸿沟，开始于这两个流派的止步之处。他们的方法从生产和表现的循环审美系统来理解文学事实。在这样做的过程中，他们剥夺了文学一个不可改变的维度，即它的接受和影响，而这个维度既属于它的审美特征，也属于它的社会功能。读者、听众和观众--简而言之，观众--在这两种文学理论中都扮演着极其有限的角色。正统的马克思主义美学对待读者的方式与对待作者的方式一样；它询问读者的社会地位，或描述他在社会结构中的地位。形式主义学派只需要读者作为感知主体，遵循文本中的指示，才能感知其形式或发现其程序技术。它假定读者有足够精通文学工具的语言学家的理论知识，能够反思它们。另一方面，马克思主义学派实际上将读者的自发经验等同于历史唯物主义的学术兴趣，该学派试图发现生产的经济基础和作为智力上层建筑一部分的文学作品之间的关系。然而，正如瓦尔特·布尔斯特所说，“从来没有文字被写来供语言学家阅读和解释，”1我可以补充说，历史上也没有他的--
take up once again the unresolved dispute between the Marxist and formalist schools. My attempt to bridge the gap between literature and history, between historical and aesthetic approaches, begins at the point at which both schools stop. Their methods understand the literary fact in terms of the circular aesthetic system of production and of representation. In doing so, they deprive literature of a dimension which unalterably belongs to its aesthetic character as well as to its social function: its reception and impact. Reader, listener and spectator-in short, the audience-play an extremely limited role in both literary theories. Orthodox Marxist aesthetics treats the readerif at all-the same way as it does the author; it inquires about his social position or describes his place within the structure of the society. The formalist school needs the reader only as a perceiving subject who follows the directions in the text in order to perceive its form or discover its techniques of procedure. It assumes that the reader has the theoretical knowledge of a philologist sufficiently versed in the tools of literature to be able to reflect on them. The Marxist school, on the other hand, actually equates the spontaneous experience of the reader with the scholarly interest of historical materialism, which seeks to discover relationships between the economic basis of production and the literary work as part of the intellectual superstructure. However, as Walther Bulst has stated, "no text was ever written to be read and interpreted philologically by philologists," 1 nor, may I add, historically by his-