Karl Philipp Moritz, Complete works. Critical and annotated edition, vol. 4/2: Götterlehre and other mythological writings

与《德意志简报》（1793年首次出版）相比，《Götterlehre》（1791年）是卡尔·菲利普·莫里茨最成功的作品，到1861年有13个版本和各种译本。这本书开始了对古代神话的重新评价。然而，作者的工作方法和知识前提在很大程度上仍然未知。研究忽略了“Mythologischen Almanach fr Damen”（1792）和莫里茨的“Mythologischen Wörterbuch zum Gebrauch fr Schulen”（1794）部分，这些内容出现在他死后，同样被重新出版和翻译了几次。古代声音的多样性和不一致性从“Götterlehre”的页面上向我们说话，就像现代以来广泛，复杂分支和密集网络的接受史一样。莫里茨的直接参考领域是神话在18世纪集体知识中的存在，以及将它们融入开明思想世界的障碍。KMA第4卷解释性说明的范围考虑到了这些条件。莫里茨咨询的资料来源，以及他如何在与神话有关的辩论中定位自己，第一次被广泛地记录下来。尤其是关于神制和奥林匹斯诸神的章节，莫里茨评价了古代文学，并经常非常忠实地从源头转述：荷马史诗，赫西奥德的“神制”，荷马赞美诗，卡利马科斯和一些拉丁经典。原则上，《神话年鉴》具有相同的结构，其核心是“Götterlehre”文本的拼贴。虽然莫里茨不重视古代神话（狄奥多罗斯、阿波罗多罗斯、海吉纳斯等），但他经常引用18世纪的调查文献，甚至在他为“神话Wörterbuch”编写的大部分文章中，也倾向于批判地看待神话。在对“Götterlehre”的评论中，莫里茨和克里斯蒂安·戈特洛布·海因一样，采取了神话启蒙文学对-à-vis希腊诸神和英雄世界的超然心态，以便用神话作为诗歌的观念来代替它。后者允许他做许多事情：远离古物问题，将神话视为一个独立的知识领域，将“Götterlehre”与他自己的美学理论联系起来，并将它们开放给心理学兴趣，正如他在“杂志zur Erfahrungsseelenkunde”中发展的那样。尤其是浪漫主义作家，他们接受了“Götterlehre”的想法，并与之一起奔跑。编辑后的文本补充了原始文件，这些文件也记录了它们的接受情况，包括19世纪初未出版的法语翻译“Götterlehre”的序言。插图涵盖了“Götterlehre”和“Mythologischen Almanach”的所有扉页和雕刻；它们的来源在注释中有说明。

Even more so than the “Allgemeine deutsche Briefsteller” (first published in 1793), the “Götterlehre” (1791) is the work of Karl Philipp Moritz that met with greatest success, with thirteen editions and various translations by 1861. This book began a re-evaluation of ancient mythology. Nevertheless, the author’s working methods and knowledge premises remain in large part unknown. Research has overlooked the “Mythologischen Almanach für Damen” (1792) and Moritz’s portion of the “Mythologischen Wörterbuch zum Gebrauch für Schulen” (1794), which appeared posthumously and was likewise republished and translated several times. Antiquity’s diversity of voices and inconsistencies speak to us from the pages of the “Götterlehre”, as does the broad, complexly branched and densely networked reception history from the modern age. Moritz’s immediate field of reference is the presence of myths in the collective knowledge of the 18th century and the obstacles to integrating them into the enlightened world of ideas. The scope of the explanatory notes to vol. 4 of the KMA take account of these conditions. The sources Moritz consulted, and how he positioned himself in myth-related debates, are extensively documented for the first time. Particularly for the chapters on theogony and the Olympian gods, Moritz evaluated ancient literature and often paraphrased quite faithfully from the source: the Homeric epics, Hesiod’s “Theogony”, the Homeric Hymns, Callimachus and a number of Latin classics. In principle, the “Mythologische Almanach” has the same structure, at heart a collage of texts from the “Götterlehre”. While Moritz disregards ancient mythography (Diodorus, Apollodorus, Hyginus etc.), he frequently resorts – even in most of the articles he compiled for the “Mythologische Wörterbuch” – to 18th-century survey literature disposed to view myth critically. The commentary on the “Götterlehre” shows Moritz, no less than the further approaches of Christian Gottlob Heyne, assuming the distanced mindset of mythological Enlightenment literature vis-à-vis the world of Greek gods and heroes, in order to substitute it with the idea of mythology as poetry. The latter allows him to do a number of things: to turn away from antiquarian matters, to treat mythology as an independent field of knowledge, to link the “Götterlehre” with his own aesthetic theory, and to open them up to psychological interests, as he had developed them in the “Magazin zur Erfahrungsseelenkunde”. Romantic authors in particular took up the ideas of the “Götterlehre” and ran with them. The edited texts are supplemented with original documentation that also records their reception, including the preface to an unpublished French translation of the “Götterlehre” from the beginning of the 19th century. The illustrations encompass all the title pages and the engravings from the “Götterlehre” and the “Mythologischen Almanach”; their origins are given in the notes.