Cultural History of Theft: A Foundation Myth

狡猾，狡猾，勇敢，聪明的小偷是一个突出的角色：盗窃的叙述主要属于希腊和基督教的基础神话，文化历史在许多方面都有所不同，直到现在。普罗米修斯从众神那里偷火；赫尔墨斯把从阿波罗那里偷来的牛藏了起来；亚当和夏娃吃了禁果。然而，盗窃不仅可以定位在这些涉及文化认同的基本罪过的复杂之中，它还塑造了自我定位的叙述，即个体主体的构成，正如奥古斯丁的《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我决定方式：坡的《失窃的信》，穆西尔、茨威格、施尼茨勒、热内和洛赫的作品——都描绘了成功的小偷。盗窃必须与抢劫、绑架、抢劫和勒索区分开来，因为后者意味着使用权力：盗窃不是基于权力，而是基于狡猾。盗窃的具体特征在于它的模糊性，因为它同时包含了参与和异化。一方面，赃物将窃贼与受害者捆绑在了一起，另一方面，窃贼通过盗窃行为将自己异化。因此，开端并不是绝对的开端；在盗窃的范围内，自我定位和文化认同总是同时指的是传统和创新。因此，包括自主和他律，创新和传统，参与和异化，抗议和内疚，这种矛盾心理注定了盗窃行为是一个富有成效的哲学和文学人物。然而，像自我定位、自主、权力使用和起源问题这样的主题，往往突出了盗窃叙事，因为这些文本在哲学和文学反思的边缘上进行了深入研究。因此，为了研究盗窃现象，文学文本必须作为哲学文本来阅读，反之亦然，哲学文本必须作为文学文本来阅读。换句话说：一个人必须选择一种隐喻的方法来澄清集体和个人的神话。这样做的好处是双重的：一方面可以审视文学与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。盗窃的叙述或盗窃的隐喻用法——这是该项目的假设——描述了一种构成文化、话语或个人主体性和主权的行为。该项目开启了对国家、文化和个人基础神话研究的真正讨论。这是第一次，它关注的是一个基本上未被探索的神话，从古代到现在一直非常多产。

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.