K O D I K A S / C O D E 44 (2021) · No. 1 - 3 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen On Achim Eschbach's Habilitation (Gutachten) Jürgen Trabant Berlin October 11 th , 1984 I have known Mr. Eschbach for many years through his scientific work and for some years also personally from the cooperation in the publication of the journal Kodikas/ Code as well as in the section “ History of Semiotics ” of the German Society for Semiotics. I have thus been able to follow Eschbach ’ s academic career continuously. Based on this familiarity with the person and the scholarly work of Achim Eschbach, the present review is essentially founded on rereading a large part of Eschbach ’ s published work. The numerous lecture manuscripts and publication announcements that Eschbach included in his bibliography have not been taken into account, as is customary for such appraisals. Eschbach ’ s published work is so extensive that there is no need for further documentation. The scientific physiognomy of Eschbach presents itself to me as follows. Achim Eschbach scholarly debut was not his dissertation, but rather a series of publications that immediately made Eschbach known to an audience interested in semiotics (the dissertation, completed in 1976, did not appear until 1979): semiotic bibliographies and bibliographical surveys which, at the beginning of the 1970s, fulfilled an important informational function providing an overview of publications in the hitherto relatively unknown field of semiotics. Special bibliographic compilations dedicated to film semiotics complemented two large general semiotic bibliographies. The bibliographical documentation is constantly being updated and will soon be published in another bibliographical volume. The second major area in which Eschbach presents himself to the scholarly public are his widely extended translating and editing activities. As far as the translations of semiotic literature are concerned, which are important contributions in themselves, I will deal here only with those that are connected to Eschbach ’ s independent studies, i. e. in particular with the translations of Smart and Morris. The translation and presentation of Smart ’ s sematology represents a real discovery of this English philosopher for the Germanspeaking world which has hitherto treated English common-sense philosophy stepmotherly. Especially important are the introductions to the works of Charles W. Morris, edited and translated by Eschbach. After Apel ’ s introduction to Morris ’ major work Sign, Language and Behavior (translated by Eschbach), Eschbach ’ s studies make Morris known in Germany. In these studies, Eschbach proves to be an exceptionally well-read and wellinformed commentator who is able to convincingly bring Morris ’ specific intellectualhistorical position and approach to a German audience. In particular, the introduction to the first Morris volume supervised by Eschbach does an excellent job of relating Morris' subject matter to current issues, most beautifully exemplified by the discussion of the “ aesthetic sign. ” Eschbach succeeds in conveying his own intellectual-historical context with the translated text. The introduction to the third Morris volume supervised by Eschbach, on the theory of mind, shows Eschbach as a philosophically well-versed author. In the sketch of the concept of “ experience ” it becomes clear that “ experience ” - precisely the point of the new, “ semiotic ” epistemology in confrontation with Kant - is altogether built on signs and mediated by signs, an idea that Peirce in particular (but also Humboldt) had developed in the wake of and in confrontation with Kant. Thus, it avoids a break between “ perception ” and “ cognition ” since also perception proceeds semiotically. Finally, in the introduction to the “ Morris-Studien ” Eschbach explains his critical distance to Morris. He makes Morris - or better a “ science business ” relying on Morris - responsible for the currently not particularly satisfying state of the discipline. Eschbach ’ s counter-position - essentially based on Peirce - is a critical semiotics in which the active synthetic constitution of the sign as an apagogic (abductive) creative procedure is essential. In Eschbach ’ s work on Morris, it becomes particularly obvious how Eschbach ’ s “ semiotic-linguistic-philosophical-scientific-historical ” focus emancipates itself from the translating and editing activities in the service of the tradition of semiotics and how his specific scientific profile crystallizes, thus perfectly fitting the designation of the venia legendi Eschbach is applying for. The dissertation of 1976 represents a first summary - from today ’ s point of view, an interim summary - of Eschbach ’ s semiotic efforts. The dissertation with the somewhat misleading title Pragmasemiotik und Theater (the theater is only mentioned in passing; the chapter on the theater is more of an excursus) contains a sketch of the history of semiotics (and an overview of the problems of semiotic historiography), it develops the main features of a semiotics based on action theory and the main features of a semiotic aesthetics. Eschbach ’ s interest will initially shift to the first issue, the history of semiotics; the development of a systematic semiotic position of his own is the focus of Eschbach ’ s current work (this is already becoming increasingly clear in the last Bühler works); and semiotic aesthetics is taken up again in the considerations on literary semiotics (in the introduction to “ Literary Semiotics ” ) and is always present as a perspective, as a starting point and a goal, of his semiotic quest. The following remarks refer primarily to the field of the history of semiotics. On the basis of his excellent knowledge of the history of semiotics, Eschbach has repeatedly drawn attention to forgotten figures and thus rediscovered them for semiotic reflection. This is quite visibly the case with Smart, already mentioned, but also with Weltring, Röder, Matzat etc.. I remember that even before the rediscovery of the “ idéologues ” in France Eschbach knew of their sign-theoretical importance, about which, in the essays on Maine de Biran and Prevost, he has only recently commented. Fundamental reflections on a historiography of semiotics have been made in his contribution to the anthology co-edited with me. These 14 Jürgen Trabant show that Eschbach is not only concerned with a naive collection of facts of the past, but that his work rests on a theoretical and methodological reflection of semiotic historiography itself. Originally, the work on Karl Bühler, which has increasingly occupied Eschbach in recent years and which seems to have moved to the center of his current work, was also the rediscovery of a “ forgotten ” author for semiotics. Eschbach is the editor of a multi-volume Karl Bühler edition that is in the process of being published. For this edition, he is not only drawing on Bühler ’ s works that have already been published, but also intends to publish extensive manuscript discoveries for the first time. He is also collecting the soon to be published “ Bühler-Studies ” , an event comparable to the “ Morris-Studies ” which will certainly meet with great interest among experts. However, here we are not dealing so much with the editorial achievements, which in themselves represent a pioneering feat, but with the studies Eschbach has presented on the subject of Bühler. I had before me the essay of 1981, his preface and contribution to the “ Bühler-Studies ” (1984), and the weighty essay on axiomatics. In these works, Eschbach is concerned with three things: First, with reconstructing a non-reductionist understanding of Bühler; second, with reconstructing the scientific-historical context of Bühler ’ s thought; and finally, with developing his own perspectives. Eschbach has shown this particularly well in the long essay on axiomatics. Here, after situating the problem, Bühler ’ s semiotic axiomatics is presented in a conceptual-historical way (section 2), then Bühler ’ s relation to other authors, e. g., the important relation to Hilbert (section 3) and to other semiotic axiomatics (esp. Gomperz) (section 4), thirdly, Eschbach presents his own attempt of a semiotic axiomatics. The ambitious sketch of a semiotic axiomatics is the sum of certain semiotic guiding principles hinted at here and there in Eschbach ’ s work, a sketch perhaps too brief here, which does not necessarily follow only from Bühler ’ s work. The fourth axiom, if I see it correctly, is much more likely to be developed in a Saussure study. The sociality assumption already underlies the preoccupation with the Mead context; interpretation, triadic relation and processuality spring from the Morris-Peirce context. This trait of cautiously “ picking up ” systematic features from the interpretation and the history of semiotics seems to be a quite characteristic trait of Eschbach ’ s work which gradually gains its axioms from the interpretation of great semioticians. As a basic characteristic of Eschbach ’ s semiotics, I would like to emphasize the fact that he does not conceive semiotics only as a descriptive language, a mere conceptual instrument that can be applied to all kinds of objects, but that he understands semiotics as what it always was in the course of its long history, namely as “ logic ” or as a “ fundamental critical method of reflection ” , i. e. as philosophy of language. In his presentation of Welby ’ s semantics, Eschbach ’ s basic semantic assumptions become clear once again (dynamization of meaning, apagogic, creative processuality of meaning). In his Peirce essay, which precedes the first volume of the series Foundations of Semiotics, he specifies his view of the basic structure of the history of science (cooperation vs. catastrophe, revolution) and clarifies the basic position of semiotics (logic as semiotics) as well as the basic belief that scientific thinking is to be developed from the history of science and that the “ community of investigators ” is to be understood not only synchronically as the community of scientists currently living and talking to each other, but also diachronically as a community between generations and centuries. On Achim Eschbach's Habilitation 15 After what has been said so far, there can be no doubt that the present work of Eschbach goes far beyond what is commonly demanded of a “ habilitation ” . The work is not only the equivalent of a habilitation thesis but corresponds in scope and content to several books. Thus, one could compile a Morris volume, a Bühler volume, a volume of studies on the history of semiotics, as well as reports on the state of the art. Of course, a “ Habilitationsgutachten ” has to conclude with some critical remarks (which do not diminish the applicant's achievements). For all the excellence in the core area of his scientific work which I have tried to present, Eschbach also has published some marginalia that do not quite correspond to the quality of his work in the core area. And the second critical remark concerns the historical approach. Of course, I appreciate the historical perspective, but I would like to see it somewhat toned down. The systematic drafts of Eschbach are so far too cautiously developed from the interpretation of authors and one is still curious about the systematic development of his semiotics. Eschbach applies for the venia legendi for art studies with a focus on semiotics, philosophy of language and the history of science. The semiotic problem of aesthetics is, as I have shown, the starting point and the continuously present perspective of Eschbach ’ s work. Semiotics is for Eschbach largely identical with the philosophy of language. Eschbach approaches this field predominantly in terms of the history of science. The triad of semiotics, philosophy of language, and history of science is therefore to be understood as a unity that characterizes the specificity of Eschbach ’ s approach. Achim Eschbach is so well known in the German semiotic scene (and beyond) that they would probably be surprised to learn that he has not yet been habilitated in the field of “ semiotics, philosophy of language, history of science ” . It is therefore time to grant him the venia legendi he has applied for. 16 Jürgen Trabant