Cultural History of Theft: A Foundation Myth

狡猾、狡猾、勇敢和聪明的小偷是一个突出的人物：关于盗窃的叙述主要属于希腊和基督教的基础神话，即文化历史在许多方面一直到现在都不同。普罗米修斯从神那里偷了火；赫尔墨斯藏起了他从阿波罗那里偷来的牛；亚当和夏娃拿走了被禁的苹果。然而，盗窃不仅可以定位在这些涉及文化身份的基本违法行为的情结中，它还塑造了自我定位的叙事，即个体主体的构成，就像奥古斯丁的忏悔录或卢梭所看到的那样。在现代文学中，盗窃也是一种流行的自决手段：坡的《失窃的信》，穆西尔、茨威格、施尼茨勒、热奈和洛赫的作品--所有这些都描绘了成功的盗窃。盗窃必须与抢劫、绑架、强盗和敲诈勒索区分开来，因为后者暗示着权力的使用：盗窃不是基于权力，而是基于狡猾。盗窃的特殊特征在于其模糊性，因为它包含参与和疏远：一方面，赃物将小偷与受害者捆绑在一起，另一方面，小偷通过偷窃的行为疏远自己。因此，开始不是绝对的；它总是指先前的事件，因此不是真正的“起源”：在盗窃的范围内，自我定位和文化认同总是同时指传统和创新。因此，包括自主性和他律性、创新和传统、参与和异化、抗议和内疚在内的这种矛盾心理注定了盗窃行为是一个更具生产力的哲学和文学人物。然而，自我定位、自治、权力的使用和起源的问题等话题往往突出了对盗窃的叙述，这些叙述是在哲学和文学反思之间挖掘的文本。为了考察偷窃现象，文学文本必须被解读为哲学文本，反之亦然，哲学文本必须被解读为文学文本。换句话说：人们必须选择一种隐喻的方法，既要澄清集体神话，也要澄清个人神话。成果是双重的：一方面，可以考察文学和哲学之间的相互关系，另一方面，可以看到它们之间的联系因素。对盗窃的叙述或盗窃的隐喻用法--这是该项目的假设--描述了一种构成一种文化、一种话语或个人的主体性和主权的行为。该项目开启了一场关于民族、文化和个人基础神话研究的真正讨论。这是第一次，它关注一个基本上没有被探索的神话，从古代到现在，这个神话一直很有成效。

The sly, cunning, brave, and clever thief is a prominent character: Narrations of theft centrally belong to both the Greek and Christian foundation myths that cultural history has varied up to the very present in many ways. Prometheus steals fire from the gods; Hermes hides the cattle that he stole from Apollo; Adam and Eve take the forbidden apple.Yet, theft can not only be located within the complex of these basic transgressions that concern cultural identity, it also shapes the narrations of self-positing, i.e. the constitution of the individual subject, as seen in Augustine's Confessions or in Rousseau. In modern literature, theft is also a popular means of selfdetermination: Poe's The Purloined Letter, the works of Musil, Zweig, Schnitzler, Genet, and Loher - all of them portray successful thieves.Theft has to be distinguished from robbery, abduction, trover, and extortion, since the latter imply the use of power: Theft is not based on power, it is based on cunning.Theft's specific feature lies in its ambiguity since it contains both participation and alienation: On one hand, the stolen goods bind the thief to his victim in participation, on the other hand, the thief alienates himself with the act of thievery. Consequently, the beginning is not an absolute one; it always refers to the previous event and, therefore, is not really an 'origin': In the scope of theft, self-positing and cultural identity always refer to both tradition and innovation at the same time. Hence, including autonomy and heteronomy, innovation and tradition, participation and alienation, protest and guilt, this ambivalence predestines the action of theft to be a more than productive philosophical and literary figure.Yet, topics like self-positing, autonomy, use of power, and the question of origins often highlight narrations of theft as texts that delve on the borderline between philosophical and literary reflexion. In order to examine the phenomenon of theft, literary texts have thus to be read as philosophical ones, and - vice versa - philosophical texts have to be read as literary ones. In other words: One has to choose a metaphorological approach that clarifies both collective and individual mythologems. The gains are twofold: On one hand, the reciprocal relationship between literature and philosophy can be examined, and on the other hand, their connecting factors can be made visible.Narrations of theft or the metaphorical usage of theft - that is the project's hypothesis - describe an action that constitutes a culture, a discourse, or the subjectivity and sovereignty of an individual.The project opens a genuine discussion on the research of national, cultural, and individual foundation myths. For the first time, it is concerned with a basically unexplored mythologem that has been highly productive from antiquity to the present.