General concepts

 ii.1.1.Who is the person or entity responsible for the choice of words and composition of a lyric poem, in the sense that this constitutes the text in question? And what role do they play when readers are confronted with a poem? These questions can be answered in different ways.

 ii.1.2.In literary studies, the historical, real or empirical “author” is the person considered responsible for the content and form of a text – for example, the “intellectual creator” of a text (see Kleinschmidt 1997; Schönert 2014). The term “author” is not specific to poetry, nor even to literature in general; it can also be applied to non-literary texts (e.g. scientific articles), nor is it limited to the print medium (e.g. “film d’auteur”).

 ii.1.3.There are various terms used to designate people who write or produce poems, each of which is linked to a different historical and cultural understanding of lyric poetry and authorship. In German, we find the terms Poet*in, Dichter*in, Schriftsteller*in, Autor*in, Lyriker*in (where *in designates the female gender). As early as the 17th century, the term Poet (from the Latin poeta derived from the Greek poietes; see Detken 2003) was already occasionally regarded as contemptuous in the German language and the word Dichter (from the Latin dictare) consequently prevailed (seeDetken 2003, 1289). Even the term Dichter, however, is now mostly only employed for authors from earlier times (up to the 20th century). For Hilde Domin (1975, 156), the word Dichter had “become suspect” following the Second World War, so much so that she instead considered herself a Lyriker (lyric poet). In English, it is now common to speak of “poets” as writers of poetry, in French of poètes/poètesses as “authors” of poésie. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “poetess” can mean a [female] producer of “poetry” in English; however, the term has also been employed, both in a positive and negative fashion, to refer to a particular type of writing in the so-called “poetess tradition” since the 18th century (see Prins 2012, 1052). Today, many prefer the term “(woman) poet” (see Thain 2003).

 ii.1.4.Authorship can be linked to the question of the biographical. This approach, known as “biographical criticism”, “biographism” or “psychologism” is at times viewed critically, especially when literary texts are read as historical sources or justified by means of biographical anecdotes. By contrast, there is a traditional understanding of lyric poetry that perceives this genre as the subjective expression of those who produce it. Lyric poetry conceived as subjective expression is sometimes referred to as the “Romantic” model (e.g. by Mazzoni 2005, 43; Jackson 2012) and was influentially described in the Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik (“Lectures on Aesthetics”) by Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1999) rooted in German idealism. From today’s perspective, this position and the fundamental relationship between subjectivity and authorship are controversial (see Combe 1996 for a discussion of this). There are, however, lyrical genres such as that of “confessional poetry” which play with the possibility of autobiographical discourse.

 ii.1.5.A “contextualistic” position (see Lamarque 2009, 84) views authorship more broadly as a matter of to whom aesthetic creativity can be attributed, rather than as the task of deciphering subjective expression (“expressivism”). Authorship can here be understood in terms of a specific approach to language (musical, visual, political, etc.). Expectations regarding works and individuals are reflected in reception processes, as those interested in literature favor the writing styles or themes of certain authors. Proper names can assume an orienting function: poetry volumes appear under a certain name and are listed under this name in bibliographies; literary specialists indicate their expertise regarding the work of particular individuals. The names of authors can function as trademarks for works (see Neuhaus 2011, albeit on novels) and serve to direct attention (see Parr and Schönert 2008, 9); it is via this function that the growing interest in the portrayal of authorship in literary studies has been able to emerge (see Wetzel 2022, chap. III.2; see also posture, see Meizoz 2007). Stylistic and metrical studies on authorship attribution (see Burrows and Craig 2019) represent a special case.

 ii.1.6.One of the specific characteristics of lyric-authorship is that mediation, performance and presentation are of particular significance. Lyric poetry can be read, spoken or performed by the “producers” themselves or by another person. This raises the question of the boundary between the producer and the inner-textual enunciating position [—i.e. “voice”; enunciative instance in lyric poetry]. Perception and effect vary depending on who reads, speaks or interprets the poem (see Gräbner and Casas 2011, 11; >>Performance of lyric poetry). Finally, some poets influence the perception and interpretation of their works, for example through poetry readings or interviews, which also raises the question of the hermeneutic validity of their statements about their own work.

 ii.1.7.The idea of autonomous authorship is connected with the assumption that the author is an individual who is solely responsible for creating a new and unique work for which they alone deserve recognition (see Woodmansee 1994, 35). This notion of solitary poets, however, neglects institutional writing practices. Consequently, from a heteronomous perspective, questions of gender, origin or class as well as integration into social practices arise, for instance with regard to a particular group (e.g. “poetic circles”) for which the writing primarily takes place. Other people are included in the production process as a whole, such as historically unnamed co-writing women, people who are entrusted with publication (e.g. publishers, editors, etc.), as well as, indirectly, people involved in the dissemination of literature through literary criticism and literary studies, and last but not least, the readers (Hierarchies/Canons of Lyric Poetry; Literary Critique of Lyric Poetry).

 ii.1.8.Collective authorship can manifest itself in various forms in lyric poetry, for example in the chain poem, as in the Japanese renga, or in poems that are created jointly by several people or that result from mutual inspiration (such as the Xenien of Schiller and Goethe, see Goethe 1988). While cooperative or collaborative practices are not new to lyric, the underlying techniques have been expanded in the context of “conceptual literature” and “uncreative writing” (see Goldsmith 2011). Existing texts (with or without mention of the original authors) can be reworked, intertextual editing may occur, or the entire text may be borrowed from external sources (e.g. traffic reports); depending on the perspective, this might be a case of mixed authorship.

 ii.1.9.Another form of ambiguous authorship is encountered in pseudonyms or anonymous texts. Unidentified authorship can be intentional on the part of the author (e.g. mocking poems, pasquils), but it can also come about through the (unintentional) loss or suppression of a name.

 ii.1.10.The production of poetry goes hand in hand with legal or financial control or ownership over what is published, which constitutes an economically and legally relevant aspect of authorship: namely, who receives the literary prize or, if applicable, the royalties for the work? Thanks to the printing press, books would become commodities from the Early Modern period onwards. Pirated editions, i.e. unauthorized reprints of works that the author had published by a printer via a contractual agreement represented an economic threat, especially for publishers. In England, copyright was already strongly protected in the 18th century (see St Clair 2004), in contrast to the territorially fragmented German Empire, for example. In addition to copyright, which can also, when necessary, be bought and sold, modern copyright law establishes an “indissoluble connection” (“unlösbare Verbindung”, Martus 2007, 14) between author and work: even those who acquire copyright are not permitted to pass off the text as their own or to change it at will; in this respect, works are regarded as pertaining to personal rights (seeAchermann 2022, 243). Copyright law also protects against plagiarism, the unauthorized use of the intellectual achievements of others, which has been seen as a dishonorable practice since antiquity, but which would only have legal consequences with the advent of copyright law. In Western European book markets, the works of lyric poets appear in relatively small print runs. A somewhat more complex picture emerges when one considers the lyrics of contemporary music or the influence of “insta-poets” such as Rupi Kaur.

 ii.1.11.The controversial debate about the extent to which authorship is relevant for interpretation is well-known. Roland Barthes’ phrase “death of the author” (Barthes 2002), which metaphorically refers to the status of authorship regarding the act of writing, and thus the reception of texts, is in this respect notorious. Barthes’ position intersects with a number of author-critical positions (for example from New Criticism, reception theory or reader-response theory), which have contributed to questioning the relationship between author and text (see Burke 2008); these have also suggested that the reference to authorship in interpretation can be unnecessary, or even misleading. Conversely, various works of literary theory have argued for a “return of the author” (for a discussion of this, see Schaffrick and Willand 2014; Spoerhase 2007).

 ii.1.12.Literary communication models are paradigmatic for a systematic-functional view of authorship. Following linguistic communication models, such as those presented in 1934 in the Sprachtheorie of Karl Bühler ([“Language Theory”] 1999, 28) juxtaposing sender and receiver, the function of the “author” can be contrasted with that of the “reader”. The mathematical information model by Shannon and Weaver (1949, 4f.), according to which understanding “merely” presupposes a shared code, was likewise influential (see Jakobson 1960, 353; for the cognitivist expansion of this concept, see e.g. Sperber and Wilson 1995). In its applications in literary studies, the model is augmented to the extent that text-internal levels of communication are presupposed. In principle, the authorial position is separated from the poetic voice of the text, which is addressed to an addressee (>>ENUNCIATIVE INSTANCES OF LYRIC POETRY). This demarcation of real authorship from text-inherent mediating instances is often intensified to the point of assuming a text-internal substitution of authorship, which is designated by terms such as “implicit author” (see Schönert 1999) or “abstract author” (see Schmid 2021) (for a critical discussion of this see, among others, Stecker 1987; Kindt and Müller 2006). The postulation of an “abstract author” is an expression of the fact that communication between author and reader is increasingly seen, not from the perspective of a descriptive model, but rather as a problem.

Historical Contexts

 ii.1.13.Since antiquity, the genre of lyric poetry has developed in European culture (on which the following remarks focus) primarily through various models, not only via textual examples but also through authorship models (see Hoffmann and Langer 2016, 139) and the important role played by exemplary lyric poets. Among the earliest of those today included in the European lyric tradition are Sappho and Archilochos (early 6th century BC), behind whom lies the linguistic world of Homeric songs conveyed by rhapsodes (epic singers). Sappho’s odes are not only an enduring model of the love lyric, but serve as good examples for defining lyric to this day (e.g. Hempfer 2014, 30–32; Culler 2015, 10–16). At the time of their composition, the texts were referred to as song (mélos, “melic poetry”). (>> SONG, SONG-LIKE). It was not until the Hellenistic period, some three centuries later, that Sappho and some of her contemporaries or successors were canonized as the so-called “nine lyric poets” (lyrikoí, see Primavesi 2008, 15–20). With the establishment of the modern concept of lyric poetry after 1800, other poetic genres of Greek antiquity besides song-poetry, such as the iamb and elegy, were subsequently integrated into the history of lyric genres (see Rösler 2016, 324).

 ii.1.14.Earlier research saw a new self-reflexivity and the first form of individuality in the discursive postures of melic poetry (e.g. Snell 1955, 84). It is, however, questionable to what extent the emergence of the self at the time (including in philosophy) is comparable with modern subjectivity. Both Sappho and Archilochos did not compose alone, but (presumably like most producers of lyric poetry of early times) formed part of a close circle of other poets. At her educational institution for young girls (within which the poems may have had a socially integrating function), Sappho is known to have had a competitor (for whom a comparable activity can be assumed), and Archilochos speaks of performing as a commissioned poet-singer.

 ii.1.15.From the 5th century BC onwards, the term poietes (from ποίησις / poiesis, “to make and do”), which generally refers to the “maker”, including the maker of verse, occurs with increased frequency.

 ii.1.16.In the urban cultures of late Hellenism and Rome, both the social environment of the producers of poetry and the poems themselves change. Poets react individually to social life at the courts (Theocritus) and in the upper classes (in Rome: Tibullus and Catullus). Later and up until late antiquity, new instances emerge next to the producers of lyric, which have to be taken into account, such as the increasing intervention of state power (e.g. Ovid’s banishment by Augustus) and later (institutionalised) Christianity. This brings into focus a problem that is still relevant today: namely, censorship (>> Publishing Poetry).

 ii.1.17.Throughout the entire history of ancient poetry, the idea that poetry is due to divine inspiration persists. In most cases, reference is made to the assistance of the Muse or Muses (pl.), who are counted among the Greek goddesses (see Otto 1956; Barmeier 1968). In the dialogue Ion, Plato emphasizes that even the “lyric poets are not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of music and metre they are inspired and possessed” (see Plato 1871, 534). In the dialog Phaedrus (245), the “poet” who merely possesses artfulness (τέχνη / téchnē) is considered inferior to the one who is possessed by musical madness (μανία / mania). This form of inspiration is generally referred to as “enthusiasm” (“being in god, god-enchantment”). In Ancient Rome, the idea of divine inspiration is echoed, for example, in the fact that the poet is regarded as vates (seer) or poeta vates. Marsilio Ficino, an important Renaissance mediator of Plato’s works, translates “enthusiasm” as furor poeticus. The effect of divinely inspired song is embodied by Orpheus, himself a son of the muse Calliope, whose singing moved animate and inanimate nature and tamed wild animals [(>>SONG, SONGLIKE)]. In Horace’s Ars Poetica, Orpheus is also the first example of the vates (v. 392–411, Horatius 2008), but when it comes to the production of poetry, Horace argues that acclaim can be won through a combination of talent and artistry.

 ii.1.18.Notwithstanding the notion of inspiration, according to which works can only be created with divine assistance, these works are also considered to be the achievements of their producers. Plagiarism was already criticized in Roman times, for example by Martial, who in an epigram accuses a certain Fidentinus of publicly passing off Martial’s poems as his own (Martialis, I,29 “Fama refert...”). In the same epigram, Martial jestingly suggests that Fidentinus should compensate him for the poem, although plagiarism was not yet at the time considered property infringement in the modern sense, but rather a case of dishonorable and disguised appropriation.

 ii.1.19.A new type of poetry producer emerged in the 11th century with William IX of Aquitaine, marking the beginning of troubadour poetry. Typically, the poet is here part of a courtly world; in his poetry, which centers on the service of women, he expresses a role of commitment and adheres to the formal conventions of a circle of poets (see Baehr 1967; Schneider 2016). The broad features of the troubadour poetry of Provence were embraced by the poetry of Catalonia and northern Italy, trouvère poetry in northern France, Minnesang (in the German-speaking world), poetry in Sicily, and poetry in Castile (Alfonso the Wise [also German king from 1257 to 1275]).

 ii.1.20.Although lyric, in contrast to epic poetry, leaves little room for authorial self-designation, the texts in collections are, even in the Middle Ages, generally assigned names (see Bein 1999, 306). Information about authorship is often registered in so-called Accessus ad auctores (see Suerbaum 1998). The ancient term auctor (see Kleinschmidt 1997, 181) had gained importance in the scholarly culture of Middle Latin. Etymologically, auctor is traced back to augere (Latin ‘to make grow, to multiply’), not to ‘authority’. Nevertheless, exemplary authorship in the Middle Ages functioned as a form of authority (see Curtius 1993, 58), for example for the foundation of knowledge and the formation of literary models (see Minnis 1984, 10). Bonaventura’s differentiation between four different ways of making books is often cited in this respect, only one of which is considered a form of authorship: the scriptor records foreign material without additions and alterations; the compilator adds parts that are not his or her own to foreign material; the commentator adds his or her own explanations to the latter; the author writes down another’s work, but primarily his own, and adds external content for corroboration (see Wetzel 2022, 88).

 ii.1.21.Dante and Petrarch left a lasting mark on the forms of lyric poetry, both through their work and person. Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), who embodies the poetry of the central Italian urban world, not only cultivates the sonnet as a poet, but also shapes this form in the Vita nova as part of the prose narrative about the exemplary love of a poet for the unattainable, but spiritually renovating, Beatrice. Francesco Petrarch’s Canzoniere (or Rerum vulgaria fragmenta) focuses on the exemplary and unfulfilled love for Laura. The thematization of unfulfilled love in poetry consequently becomes a European phenomenon (Petrarchism).

 ii.1.22.With the advent of Humanism, the works and poetics of antiquity came to the fore, some of which – such as Lucretius’s didactic poem De rerum natura – were only now being rediscovered. No poetic instructions for the forms cultivated by Petrarch had been handed down from antiquity, however – especially not via Aristotle’s Poetics. Yet during the Renaissance Petrarch was canonised to such an extent that his place as a poet within Aristotle’s framework of poetics needed to be attested (see Mazzoni 2005, 59f.). For the first time, there sprouted an interest in constructing another “macro-genre” alongside drama and epic poetry: namely, that of lyric. For the “reconstruction” of a tradition tracing its origin to antiquity, reference was made to ideal precursors, notably the odes of Horace (1st century BC) and Pindar (5th century BC). Through this lineage, vernacular works such as those of Petrarch were granted the status of exemplary poetic authority (see Huss et al. 2012, 8–13).

 ii.1.23.Although the Renaissance is often associated with the ennoblement of the artistically creative individual, premodern ideas were also perpetuated at the time (see Wetzel 2022, 94f.). Spurred on by a philological infusion of classical literature, the notion that poetic competence could be learned thus became doctrine (see Detken 2003, 1294). The poet had to be scholarly, a poeta doctus or poeta eruditus, one who writes and teaches with an awareness of rhetorical instruction and classical models. As early as Horace’s Ars poetica, utility is mentioned alongside aesthetic pleasure, which is often equated with teaching (“aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae”, v. 333). The influential theoretician of poetry J.C. Scaliger claims that the poet not only delights, but also instructs (“Namque poeta etiam docet, non solum delectat”, Poetices libri septem [“Seven books of Poetics”], I, 1; Scaliger 1994, 62).

 ii.1.24.The fact that the commitment to the poeta doctus model is in principle a counter-model to that of the inspired poet in the furor poeticus was not perceived as a problem. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the preference for the poeta doctus promoted an intellectual and strongly rhetorical (i.e. mannered) poetry (e.g. Giovan Battista Marino, Luis de Gongora). The orientation towards knowledge and rules characterised for example German Baroque poetry, which strove to produce rule-bound poetry. However, the type of the learned poet is not limited to the Early Modern period. Irrespective of the era, the poeta doctus, implicitly conceived of as male, often appears as a type that demonstrates knowledge and esoteric specialization, underlines the connection with the craft tradition in the forms used (see Barner 1981, 728), and in this way creates an exclusivity that – in Horace’s sense – shuns the uninitiated masses (see Horace, Ode III, 1: “Odi profanum volgus et arceo”). The type of the poeta doctus regained prominence in the lyric poetry of Modernism (e.g. Paul Valéry, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Gottfried Benn, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Durs Grünbein).

 ii.1.25.The 18th century is regarded as a turning point in the conceptualization of authorship, since the notion of the authorial subject as an autonomously “creating self” is only partially encountered before this time (see Kleinschmidt 1997, 177). This revaluation of poetic authorship can be traced back to numerous factors, involving legal, economic and symbolic dimensions (for some of these dimensions see >>LYRIC; >>PUBLISHING POETRY). Thus, the decline of normative poetics primarily affects form, but simultaneously has an impact on the role of poets. In German, the term Poet remains associated with a rule-bound poetics, whereas the Dichter (see Detken 2003, 1289), who is distinguished by creative individual achievement, gains in importance. With the loss of the binding nature of poetics, interest increasingly shifts to what authors themselves have written about the writing of their poems (see Brandmeyer 2016, 2).

 ii.1.26.As the age of sensibility, the 18th century fostered a new perception of texts. In contrast to drama and epic poetry, for which fictional mimesis was accepted as a fundamental principle, lyric poetry was now regarded as an achievement through which poets sincerely expressed their feelings. In 1770, Johann Adolf Schlegel noted in a critical commentary on Batteux that “odes are often the expression of the real feelings of our hearts” (Schlegel 1976, 193, translated by Ph.L.). According to such a premise, poetry can be read biographically (see Starobinski 1989, 8f.; Pask 1996). What Schlegel sets out theoretically is exemplified by Friedrich Klopstock, who presents a self-determined type of composing poetry with recourse to ancient forms.

 ii.1.27.The valorization of individual creative achievement allows for a secularized understanding of inspiration, which no longer sees authorship in a direct relation to the divine, but rather draws the divine and the artistic into the sphere of the creatively human and internalizes it (see Wetzel 2022, 109). In English- and German-speaking countries, the examination of creative individual achievement is closely related to the concept of genius (from the Latin genius and ingenium, see Weimar 1997; Lehmann 2022, 261f.; see Schmidt 1985). On account of its ability to create something unpredictably new, “genius” productively sets itself apart from literary tradition. The Querelles des Anciens et des Modernes in the 17th century can be seen as the first step in this direction. In the course of this debate, the idea of literary progress was established in relation to writing in an essentially unchanging tradition. A hermeneutical consequence of this was the growing understanding that the contexts of writing change, so that interpretation acquired from a historical distance becomes a problem. At the same time, the concept of genius can be linked to traditional notions of inspiration. Scaliger (1994, 72) had already considered the author as an alter deus; in his Apology for Poetry (1595), Sir Philip Sidney also draws a parallel to the act of creation of the “heavenly Maker” (Sidney 2002, 86); via the emphasis on personal achievement, authors can indeed ascend to the rank of Promethean “second Maker” (Shaftesbury 1710, 55), so that the elevation of the writer’s personality to that of genius, as an author “of singular intellectual or artistic talent” (Weimar 1997, translated by Ph. L.), becomes possible.

 ii.1.28.Under the influence of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, the individual genius-poet transforms into an idealistically founded authorial personality distancing themselves from creative immediacy through critical reflection. The genius combines his or her aesthetic work with the goal of individual self-formation. Schiller’s criticism of August Bürger’s poetry already perceives the writing of works as the achievement of an individual striving for self-perfection: “All that the poet can give us is his individuality. [...] The highest value of a poem can lie in nothing other than its being the pure, perfect expression of an interesting state of mind of an interesting, perfect spirit” (Schiller: Über Bürgers Gedichte [1789]; Schiller 2008, 974, translated by Ph.L.).

 ii.1.29.Both William Wordsworth (1770–1850) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) refer to the personality of the poet in order to define poetry. For Coleridge, the question “what is poetry?” is inseparable from the question “what is a poet”? (see Coleridge 1983, vol. 2, 15). Coleridge’s formulation in turn draws on Wordsworth’s second edition of the Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1802): “What is a Poet? to whom does he address himself? and what language is to be expected from him?” (Wordsworth 1992, 70f.). When, according to Wordsworth, the poet is characterized by a heightened capacity for emotion and expression vis-à-vis his fellow human beings, this expresses the self-representation of Romanticism. In French literary theory, the idea of the subjective poetic expression of feeling is condensed in the concept of lyrisme (Maulpoix 2006).

 ii.1.30.Economic upheavals in the book market brought lasting changes to working conditions. The elevation of the role of poets was met with increasing interest on the part of the reading public, and the circle of reception widened due to external social developments, which in turn triggered an increase in book production. The writing and publication of works, including that of “subjective sentimental” poetry, constituted a counter-model to occasional poetry. Poets could thus partially liberate themselves from dependence on client-based and individual patronage networks (see Viala 1985, 51-68). Insofar as writing for pay leads to economic dependency, however, the new role of the “freelance writer” is, nevertheless, not synonymous with total autonomy (see Parr and Schönert 2008, 16f.).

 ii.1.31.These developments do not preclude the perpetuation, and sometimes slight adaption of, past concepts. Friedrich Hölderlin, for example, has a particular conception of what it means to be a poet. For Hölderlin, the moment of divine “poetic talent” and inspiration (> see “Muse” above) is again brought to the fore, turning the poet into a poeta vates. The attendant “enthusiasm” is not entirely under the conscious control of poets, however. Rather, it is associated with creation via a practically learnable technique, so that the overall result is the reflection of a higher harmony. Among Modernist poets, an artistic-religious self-understanding can be identified as an extension of the poeta vates, for example in Stefan George (see Braungart 2014) and Rainer Maria Rilke (see King 2009).

 ii.1.32.Schiller understood poetry as a means of improving men, not through violent revolutionary upheaval, but through the experience of freedom in the autonomous work of art (see Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen, 1795, Schiller 2008). In the course of the 19th century, the notion of the autonomy of the work of art developed from the idea of the independence of the artwork itself, created as “art for art’s sake”. In the process, artistry regained significance, ostentatiously and ironically so in E. A. Poe (1984, 14f.), who explains in his essay Philosophy of Composition (1846) how he sought to trigger certain effects in a rationally calculated way when creating the poem The Raven. Through his work and his life, Charles Baudelaire embodies the attitude of l’art pour l’art in an almost ideal fashion. The group known as the Parnassiens established itself in Paris in the 1860s, its members programmatically distancing themselves from the subjective lyrisme of Romanticism by propagating an impersonal poetics free from social and political commitment. Stéphane Mallarmé is a prime example of this. In his essay “Crise de vers” (1882, “Crisis of Verse”), he asserts that the pure work of art implies the eloquent disappearance of the poet (“L’œuvre pure implique la disparition élocutoire du poëte, qui cède l’initiative aux mots”, Mallarmé 2003, 211). In view of the demanding poetics, however, it remains debatable to what extent poets can disappear behind the work of art, or whether the principle of individualized expression is indeed ever surpassed (see Mazzoni 2005, 195). The position of the radicalized autonomy of the work of art does not exclude the cult of the poet’s personality, as evidenced for instance by Paul Verlaine’s (1982) writings on the Poètes maudits (1883/84).

 ii.1.33.In Germany, Mallarmé’s position was widespread in the circle around Stefan George, in particular. Margarethe Susman (1910, 16) was the first to define the “Lyrische Ich” (“lyrical I”) on the basis of the criticism that, in lyric poetry “as a personal, indeed subjective construction” (“als ein persönliches, ja subjektives Gebilde”), the “speaking” self had been confused with the personal “I” of the author.

 ii.1.34.T.S. Eliot was mentioned above as an example of the modernist poeta doctus. In the essay Tradition and the Individual Talent (1917), Eliot (1948, 18) develops an “impersonal theory of poetry”. In the production of poems, Eliot sees the author at best as a catalyst that triggers a reaction. From this perspective, „[p]oetry […] is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality” (Eliot 1948, 21).

 ii.1.35.In the 20th century, literary criticism and theory regarding the author (who is still predominantly imagined as being white and male, see Miller 1993), as formulated by Roland Barthes and others, explicitly refers to the artistic poetics of literary Modernism, in particular to Mallarmé and Eliot (see Stougaard-Nielsen 2019). The poetological relativizing of poetic subjectivity might also account for why pronouncements on the relationship between lyric and the poetic persona have become rare. At the same time, the second half of the twentieth century saw a growing diversity of possible roles for authorship. This development goes hand in hand with an increasing interest in the origin and gender of the producers of lyric (>>GENDER), and can today be seen in the awarding of prizes (e.g. the Nobel Prize for Literature for Louise Glück). Diversity is not least reflected in matters of style (>>style...), as the use of standard variety is no longer considered the norm. Lyric has, like few other literary genres, absorbed other media forms, so that classifying producers with lyrical ambitions in the category of “literature” is occasionally problematic. In terms of self-representation, an area of tension can be identified, one pole of which is determined by the complete self-sufficiency of the objectified work of art and its utterly autonomous producer, whereas the other places a littérature engagée at the service of a political or social cause. These positions scarcely enable us to define formal guidelines. In addition to a resolute return to strict traditional forms (New Formalism), we find radical experiments in language and media.

State of the Art

 ii.1.36.The self-representations of lyric poets such as Else Lasker-Schüler have repeatedly attracted interest, and self-portrayals in poems have likewise become the object of study (e.g. Hinck 1985). By contrast, the partial distancing of Modernist lyric from the mainstream book market (see Mazzoni 2005) has, in the sociology of literature, only been examined selectively (see Amlinger 2021, 558; see also the project by Häntzschel 1982). In Germany, lyric poetry after 1850 has often only been published in small editions; however, there are also poets regularly producing works with large print runs, such as Emanuel Geibel (see Fohrmann 1996, 431f.), followed by Rainer Maria Rilke, and more recently, Wolf Wondratschek. Walter Benjamin’s claim (1974, 607) that no “mass success of lyric poetry” has been encountered since Baudelaire requires closer examination. The elitist renunciation of the dictates of demand can, following Bourdieu (1996), be perceived as an accretion of symbolic capital, whereby poets must simultaneously distinguish themselves from market-oriented publishing and from dilettantes (see Dorleijn 2010). Seen through this lens, it is possible to examine the often precarious economic situation of lyric within the literary market today, as well as the role played by additional income (e.g. journalism, teaching, research), private patronage, or public support (e.g. poetry readings, scholarships). The poet laureate tradition, which is still widespread in English-speaking countries, constitutes a special case.

 ii.1.37.More research is being conducted into the controversial question of the extent to which the intention of the author of lyric plays a role in the latter’s interpretation. In the early phase of this debate up until the work of Roland Barthes, the examples discussed were mainly lyrical; since then, the focus has mainly been on narrative prose (see Müller 2021).

 ii.1.38.In the wake of the Modernist depersonalization of poetry, biographical approaches have been attacked from various angles. In New Criticism, Wimsatt and Beardsley (1954) drew attention to the so-called “intentional fallacy”, that is, when an intention is inferred from the fact that poems are a product of the brain. In principle, thoughts and attitudes expressed in a poem should be attributed to a “dramatic speaker” and not to the author. In this way, the poem appears to be a timeless work of art, yet this paradigm includes contextual information about authorship.

 ii.1.39.The exacerbation of this position is to be found in post-structuralism, particularly in Roland Barthes’ essay “The Death of the Author” (1967/68; see “La mort de l’auteur”; an English translation of the essay appeared a year earlier). Barthes (2002, 41) criticizes the fact that the explanation of a work is always sought from the person that produced it (“l'explication de l'œuvre est toujours cherchée du côté de celui qui l'a produite”). By contrast, Barthes emphasizes the disappearance of the poet which had earlier already been advocated by Mallarmé (see above): Henceforth, the text is made and read in such a way that the author disappears in every respect (“le texte est désormais fait et lu de telle sorte qu'en lui, à tous ses niveaux, l'auteur s'absente” Barthes 2002, 42f.). In this way, the text is not to be “deciphered” [“déchiffrer”] with a view to an authorial opinion, for as soon as a text is attributed an author, it is contained, given a definitive meaning (“Donner un Auteur à un texte, c'est imposer à ce texte un cran d'arrêt, c'est le pourvoir d'un signifié dernier, c'est fermer l'écriture” Barthes 2002, 44).

 ii.1.40.A year after Barthes’ contribution, an essay by Michel Foucault explicitly posed the question, “What is an author?” (“Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?”, Foucault 2001). The “effacement of the author” (“effacement”, Foucault 2001, 817 and 823) in criticism and literary studies is already considered a demonstrable fact; the article considers the vestiges of an “author function” (“fonction auteur”). Foucault traces the effect of this function through the relation between the author’s name and the definition of the work. The question of the origin of the concept of individualized authorship has inspired and triggered a broader historical study of authorship (see Woodmansee 1994, 35f.).

 ii.1.41.In editorial studies, the questioning of the authorial function and its relationship to the work (see above) has helped to relativize the concept of authenticity, i.e. the attribution of a text, or of an excerpt of the latter, to an author. The long-standing ideal that the edition should produce the intended version, undistorted by further interventions, is now considered problematic (see Bohnenkamp 2002), especially as this presupposes an unrealistic conception of a solitary writing process. As an alternative, it is recommended, for instance, not to seek a perceived fidelity or proximity of the text to a biographical person, but rather to clarify solely with recourse to the witnesses of a tradition (see Martens 2004, 41).

 ii.1.42.

 ii.1.43.Although the anti-intentionalist positions are sometimes treated as an inevitable state of research (e.g. Bennett 2005), Barthes’ statements in particular have been at times polemically rejected (see “return of the author”, see Jannidis et al. 1999; Benedetti 2005; Schaffrick and Willand 2014, 11f.; on the criticism of Wimsatt and Beardsley 1954, see. Hirsch 1967). The catchphrase “return of the author” has not, however, promoted interest in biographies, but rather concerns questions of hermeneutic text analysis (see Parr and Schönert 2008, 7f.; Amlinger 2021). Concretely, the question arises as to which procedures are used to justify interpretations (for basic introductions, see Spoerhase 2007).

 ii.1.44.Following Eco (1990, 22), one can distinguish roughly three types of hermeneutic approach to the text: (1) searching for what the author intended to say; (2) searching for what the text “says” in relation to its historical context; (3) searching for what the reader wishes to find in the text. The third variant has sometimes been put forward as a consequence of the “death of the author” (see Barthes 2002), but those who subscribe to it must consequently be prepared to accept even the most abstruse interpretations as valid. The second variant corresponds roughly to the practice propagated by Wimsatt and Beardsley (1954). In the sense of the text’s autonomy from authorial intention, there arises the possibility that the text will in time reveal new meanings and that the text is “wiser than its author”. Of course, this approach presupposes that there is a rational procedure for determining the interpretation of the text, although it is debatable whether in this case authority is not ultimately usurped anew by the interpreters.

 ii.1.45.The first position is represented by different varieties of “intentionalism” (see Schaffrick and Willand 2014, 19-25). Hypothetical intentionalism aims to determine what someone who has written a text presumably wished their readers to understand; “strong intentionalism” seeks to find out what someone who has written a text actually intended (see Köppe and Winko 2007, 314). Intentionalist approaches establish relatively precise and historically-situated standards for interpretations.

 ii.1.46.Not only have there been repeated calls for a “return of the author”, but, remarkably, the relationship between lyrical subjectivity and authorship has also received new attention. This concerns the widespread fictionalization of the speaking “voice”, which, like Susman (1910), considers the “lyric I” [(the “speaker”)] as a fictional figure or which, like Wimsatt and Beardsley (1954), assigns the lyrical voice to a dramatic speaker. Conversely, Käte Hamburger (Hamburger 1994) defined the lyric poem—in contrast to epic poetry and drama—as non-fictional or as a “reality-statement” (“Wirklichkeitsaussage”) uttered by a real subject who is presumed to be identical with the poet. These opposing views demonstrate that seemingly abstract concepts such as the “lyric I” depend on certain historical contexts (see Pestalozzi 1970). The question to what extent an instance of enunciation (>>ENUNCIATIVE...) depends on an empirical self, a fictional character, or an abstracted poet’s role, or whether the relationship is undecidable (“articulated ego”, see Burdorf 2015, 194f.) therefore requires thorough philological justification. Insofar as one is not working on the assumption that all poetry is fictional, but that ethical indications or autobiographical forms are also constitutive of the genre, the possibility that poets are able to speak in their own person should also be considered. Culler’s (2015, 35) proposal to see lyric fundamentally as a rhetorical epideixis, in which something is praised or condemned in verse, rests on a critique of the widespread fictionalization of the speaking voice. Time will tell whether we can continue to speak of the return of the author in the poem.

Contemporary Practices, Methods and Debates

 ii.1.47.Digitalization has brought about a new context for the understanding of authorship (see Wetzel 2022, 166f.). Depending on the perspective, some forms of (conceptual) digital literature have resulted in mixed authorship (see Bajohr 2022).

 ii.1.48.Algorithmic delimitations of poetic creativity have a certain tradition; Raymond Queneau, for instance, worked with mathematical exponentiation (Cent Mille Milliard des Poèmes, “One Hundred Thousand Billion Poems”, 1961); Max Bense undertook something similar with his concrete poetry and works such as Bestandteile des Vorüber. Dünnschliffe Mischtexte Montagen (1961) or Zufällige Wortereignisse (1965), on the topic of which he also wrote theoretically (see Bense 1960). Digitalization facilitates such experiments (see Bajohr 2022). Thus, there today exists computer-generated poetry that operates via syntactic formulas and a database of expressions or syntagms. An example of a poetry automaton was first conceptualized by Hans Magnus Enzensberger (2000) in Einladung zu einem Poesie-Automaten, before it was technically implemented. Depending on the technical requirements, such experiments may lead to a dissemination of authorship. One of the more recent possibilities for generating poetry is the use of “artificial intelligence”. Programs recognize linguistic patterns and develop algorithms by analyzing large quantities of available verbal material, often from unnamed authors (see Bajohr 2022).

 ii.1.49.The developments outlined here primarily concern the mediality of poetry (>>MEDIALITY AND MATERIALITY), but are also indicative of wider notions regarding authorship in the digital age. In this respect, creativity is not a mysterious, singular process. Seen through this lens, the use of computers is related to “uncreative writing” and “conceptual writing” – that is, writing practices in which the implementation of an aesthetic process is more significant than the “literariness” of the texts thus created (see Goldsmith 2011; Perloff 2010). At the same time, the appropriation of immense quantities of data by means of the commercial use of artificial intelligence raises new fundamental questions about copyright. Poems written by the artificial intelligence of ChatGPT, for example, are reliant on the data being fed into the latter. They are therefore epigonic for technical reasons, even if the particular concrete composition resulting from this process did not exist beforehand. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is not entitled to any personal rights. At most, copyright can be claimed by the people and institutions who coded the program, commissioned the writing, or generated the system’s data input.