Simbolisme as werklikheidsbenadering: watter werklikheid?

Abstract

This article puts forward the argument that symbolism as poetic strategy should be approached in terms of its "historical effectiveness" in order to answer questions concerning the literary superiority which has traditionally been attributed to it in some circles. The work of Gadamer and Paul de Man, which focuses in different ways on the historically changing relationship between symbol and allegory serves as basis for the study. While Gadamer carefully outlines the route along which symbol and allegory reach a position of contrast with regard to each other towards the end of the eighteenth century, De Man problematizes the (romantic) valorization of the symbol (at the cost of allegory) by highlighting internal tensions in romantic poetry as well as in critical practice. This enables him to demonstrate that the preferential status which the symbol has traditionally enjoyed in comparison with allegory, is symptomatic of a prejudice among critics who have collectively established a tradition of literary history, and that an allegorical reading of the relevant works is equally possible (and desirable). In conclusion it is argued (with the help of Heidegger) that symbolization is doomed, in the modern era, to failure in view of its inability to surpass the fundamental structure of this era. Opsomming In hierdie artikel word betoog dat simbolisme as digterlike strategie in "werkingshistoriese" terme benader behoort te word ten einde vrae te kan beantwoord oor die literere meerderwaardigheid wat tradisioneel in sekere kringe daaraan toegeskryf is. Die werk van Gadamer en Paul de Man, wat albei op die histories veranderende verhouding tussen simbool en allegorie fokus, dien as basis vir die studie. Waar Gadamer sorgvuldig die weg aantoon waarlangs sirnbool en allegorie teen die einde van die agtiende eeu in 'n verhouding van kontras met mekaar te staan korn, problematiseer De Man die (romantiese) hoogskatting van die simbool (ten koste van allegorie) deur interne spanninge in sowel rornantiese digkuns as kritiese praktyk uit te lig. Dit stel De Man in staat om te demonstreer dat die voorkeurstatus wat die simbool tradisioneel in vergelyking met allegorie genie! het, sirnptomaties is van 'n vooroordeel by kritici wat gesarnentlik 'n literere geskiedenistradisie tot stand gebring het, en dat 'n allegoriese "lees" van die tersaaklike werke ook moontlik (en wenslik) is. Ter afsluiting word met behulp van Heidegger aangetoon dat simbolisering in die moderne era gedoem is tot mislukking vanwee die onvermoe daarvan om die grondstruktuur van hierdie era te oorskry.