Literary History As A Challenge To Literary Change (Hans Jauss)

Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory
Author(s): Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

Reviewed work(s):
Source: New Literary History, Vol. 2, No. 1, A Symposium on Literary History (Autumn,
1970), pp. 7-37
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/468585 .
Accessed: 01/05/2012 10:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
New Literary History.
http://www.jstor.org
*
Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory
HansRobertJauss
rrITERARYhistory may be seen as challenging literary theory to

take up once again the unresolved dispute between the Marxist and
formalist schools. My attempt to bridge the gap between litera-
ture and history, between historical and aesthetic approaches, begins at
the point at which both schools stop. Their methods understand the
literary fact in terms of the circular aesthetic system of production and
of representation. In doing so, they deprive literature of a dimen-
sion which unalterably belongs to its aesthetic character as well as
to its social function: its reception and impact. Reader, listener and
spectator-in short, the audience-play an extremely limited role in
both literary theories. Orthodox Marxist aesthetics treats the reader-
if at all-the same way as it does the author; it inquires about his social
position or describes his place within the structure of the society. The
formalist school needs the reader only as a perceiving subject who fol-
lows the directions in the text in order to perceive its form or discover
its techniques of procedure. It assumes that the reader has the theoreti-
cal knowledge of a philologist sufficiently versed in the tools of literature
to be able to reflect on them. The Marxist school, on the other hand,
actually equates the spontaneous experience of the reader with the
scholarly interest of historical materialism, which seeks to discover re-
lationships between the economic basis of production and the literary
work as part of the intellectual superstructure. However, as Walther
Bulst has stated, "no text was ever written to be read and interpreted
1
philologically by philologists," nor, may I add, historically by his-
* This essay is a translation of chapters V - XII of Literaturgeschichte als
Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft, Konstanz, 1967; it forms part of a just pub-
lished collection of essays, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, Frankfurt, 1970
(edition suhrkamp, 418).
I "Bedenken eines Philologen," Sturdium gendrale, VII (I954), 321-23. The
new approach to literary tradition which R. Guiette has sought in a series of pio-
neering essays (partly in Questions de litterature [Gent, I960] ), using his own
original methods of combining aesthetic criticism with understanding of history,
follows his (unpublished) axiom, "The greatest error of phiologists is to believe
that literature has been written for philologists." See also his "Eloge de la lecture,"
Revue genderale belge (January, I966), pp. 3-14.
8 NEW LITERARY HISTORY
torians. Neither approach recognizes the true role of the reader to

whom the literary work is primarily addressed, a role as unalterable for
aesthetic as for historical appreciation.
For the critic who judges a new work, the writer who conceives
of his work in light of positive or negative norms of an earlier work
and the literary historian who classifies a work in his tradition and ex-
plains it historically are also readers before their reflex relationship to
literature can become productive again. In the triangle of author,
work and reading public the latter is no passive part, no chain of mere
reactions, but even history-making energy. The historical life of a
literary work is unthinkable without the active participation of its audi-
ence. For it is only through the process of its communication that the
work reaches the changing horizon of experience in a continuity in
which the continual change occurs from simple reception to critical un-
derstanding, from passive to active reception, from recognized aesthetic
norms to a new production which surpasses them. The historicity of
literature as well as its communicative character presupposes a relation
of work, audience and new work which takes the form of a dialogue as
well as a process, and which can be understood in the relationship of
message and receiver as well as in the relationship of question and
answer, problem and solution. The circular system of production and
of representation within which the methodology of literary criticism
has mainly moved in the past must therefore be widened to include an
aesthetics of reception and impact if the problem of understanding the
historical sequence of literary works as a continuity of literary history is
to find a new solution.
The perspective of the aesthetics of reception mediates between pas-
sive reception and active understanding, norm-setting experience and
new production. If the history of literature is viewed in this way as a
dialogue between work and public, the contrast between its aesthetic
and its historical aspects is also continually mediated. Thus the thread
from the past appearance to the present experience of a work, which
historicism had cut, is tied together.
The relationship of literature and reader has aesthetic as well as
historical implications. The aesthetic implication is seen in the fact
that the first reception of a work by the reader includes a test of its
aesthetic value in comparison with works which he has already read.2
The obvious historical implication of this is that the appreciation of the
first reader will be continued and enriched through further "receptions"
from generation to generation; in this way the historical significance
2 This thesis is one of the main points of the Introduction 'aune esthetique de la
litte'rature by G. Picon (Paris, 1953), see esp. pp. 90goff.
LITERARY HISTORY AS A CHALLENGE TO LITERARY THEORY 9
of a work will be determined and its aesthetic value revealed. In this
process of the history of reception, which the literary historian can only
escape at the price of ignoring his own principles of comprehension
and judgment, the repossession of past works occurs simultaneously
with the continual mediation of past and present art and of traditional
evaluation and current literary attempts. The merit of a literary history
based on an aesthetics of reception will depend upon the degree to which
it can take an active part in the continual integration of past art
by aesthetic experience. This demands on the one hand-in opposition
to the objectivism of positivist literary history-a conscious attempt to
establish canons, which, on the other hand-in opposition to the classi-
cism of the study of traditions-presupposes a critical review if not de-
struction of the traditional literary canon. The criterion for establishing
such a canon and the ever necessary retelling of literary history is clearly
set out by the aesthetics of reception. The step from the history of the
reception of the individual work to the history of literature has to lead
us to see and in turn to present the historical sequence of works in the
way in which they determine and clarify our present literary exper-
ience.3
Literary history can be rewritten on this premise, and the following
remarks suggest seven theses that provide a systematic approach to such
rewriting.
I
If literary history is to be rejuvenated, the prejudices of historical ob-
jectivism must be removed and the traditional approach to literature
must be replaced by an aesthetics of reception and impact. The histori-
cal relevance of literature is not based on an organization of literary
works which is established post factum but on the reader's past exper-
ience of the "literary data." This relationship creates a dialogue that is
the first condition for a literary history. For the literary historian must
first become a reader again himself before he can understand and classi-
fy a work; in other words, before he can justify his own evaluation in
light of his present position in the historical progression of readers.
R. G. Collingwood's criticism of the prevailing ideology of objectivity
in history-"History is nothing but the re-enactment of past thought in
the historian's mind" 4-is even more valid for literary history. For the
3 W. Benjamin ( 193I) formulated a corresponding idea: "For it is not a question

of showing the written works in relation to their time but of presenting the time
which knows them-that is our time-in the time when they originated. Thus
literature becomes an organon of history and the task of literary history is to make
it this-and not to make it the material of history" (Angelus Novus, Frankfurt,
1966, p. 456).
4 The Idea of History (New York and Oxford, 1956), p. 228.
10 HISTORY
NEWLITERARY
positivistic view of history as the "objective" description of a series of

events in an isolated past neglects the artistic quality as well as the spe-
cific historicalrelevanceof literature. A literarywork is not an object
which standsby itself and which offersthe same face to each readerin
each period.5 It is not a monument which reveals its timeless essence in
a monologue. It is much more like an orchestrationwhich strikesever
new chords among its readers and which frees the text from the sub-
stance of the words and makes it meaningful for the time: "words
which must, at the same time that they speak to him, create an inter-
locutor capable of listening."6 A literarywork must be understoodas
creatinga dialogue,and philologicalscholarshiphas to be foundedon a
continuousre-readingof texts, not on mere facts.7 Philologicalscholar-
ship is continuously dependent upon interpretation, which must have as
its goal, along with learning about the object, the reflectionupon and
descriptionof the perfectionof this knowledgeas an impulseto new un-
derstanding.
History of literature is a process of aesthetic reception and production
which take place in realization of literary texts on the part of the recep-
tive reader, the reflective critic and the author in his continued crea-
tivity. The continuouslygrowing "literarydata" which appear in the
conventional literary histories are merely left over from this process;
they are only the collected and classified past and therefore not
history at all, but pseudo-history.Anyone who considerssuch literary
data as history confuses the eventful character of a work of art with
that of historical matter-of-factness. Perceval by Chretien de Troyes, a
literary event, is not historical in the same sense as the Third Crusade,
5 Here I am following A. Nisin in his criticism of the latent Platonism of philolog-
ical methods, that is of their belief in the timeless nature of a literary work and in
a timeless point of view of the reader: "For the work of art, if it cannot incarnate
the essence of art, is no longer an object which we can regard according to the
Cartesian rule 'without putting anything of ourselves into it but what can apply
indiscriminately to all objects.' "; La Littirature et le lecteur (Paris, 1959), P- 57
(see also my critique in Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen, CXCVII
[1960], 223-25).
6 Picon, Introduction, p. 34. This view of the dialogue-like nature of a literary
work of art is found in Malraux (Les vois du silence) as well as in Picon, Nisin, and
Guiette-a tradition of literary aesthetics which is still alive in France and to
which I am especially indebted; it finally goes back to a famous sentence in
Valery's poetics, "C'est l'ex6cution du poeme qui est le poeme."
7 P. Szondi, "Uber philologische Erkenntnis," H6lderlin-Studien (Frankfurt,
1967), rightly sees in this the decisive difference between literary and historical scho-
larship, p. I : "No commentary, no criticism of the style of a poem should aim
to give a description of the poem which one could gain by oneself. Even the least
critical reader will want to confront it with the poem and will not understand it
until he has traced the course of the argument back to the original idea upon which
it was based." Guiette says something very similar in "Eloge de la lecture" (see
note i).
LITERARY HISTORY AS A CHALLENGE TO LITERARY THEORY 1I
which was occurring at the same time. 8 It is not a "fact" which could be
explained as caused by a series of situational preconditions and motives,
by the intent of an historical action as it can be reconstructed, and by
the necessary and secondary results of this deed as an eventful turning
point. The historical context in which a literary work appears is not a
factual, independent series of events which exists apart from the reader.
Perceval becomes a literary event only for the reader who reads this last
work of Chritien in light of his earlier works and who recognizes its
individuality in comparison with these and other works which he has
already read, so that he gains a new criterion for evaluating works. In
contrast to a political event, a literary event has no lasting results
which succeeding generations cannot avoid. It can continue to
have an effect only if future generations still respond to it or rediscover
it-if there are readers who take up the work of the past again or
authors who want to imitate, outdo, or refute it. The organization of
literature according to events is primarily integrated in the artistic stand-
ards of contemporary and succeeding readers, critics, and authors.
Whether it is possible to comprehend and present the history of litera-
ture in its specific historicity depends on whether these standards can be
objectified.
II
The analysis of the literary experience of the reader avoids the
threatening pitfalls of psychology if it describes the response and the
impact of a work within the definable frame of reference of the reader's
expectations: this frame of reference for each work develops in the his-
torical moment of its appearance from a previous understanding of the
genre, from the form and themes of already familiar works, and from
the contrast between poetic and practical language.
My thesis is opposed to a widespread skepticism that doubts that an
analysis of the aesthetic impact can approach the meaning of a work
of art or can produce at best more than a plain sociology of artistic
taste. Rene Wellek directs such doubts against the literary theory of
I. A. Richards. Wellek argues that neither the individual conscious-
ness, since it is immediate and personal, nor a collective consciousness,
as J. Mukarovsky assumes the effect of an art work to be, can be deter-
mined by empirical means.9 Roman Jakobson wanted to replace the
"collective consciousness" by a "collective ideology." This he thought of
8 Note also J. Storost, "Das Problem der Literaturgeschichte," Dante-Yahrbuch,
XXXVIII (I96o), I-i7, who simply equates the historical event with the literary
event ("A work of art is first of all an artistic achievement and hence historical like
the Battle of Isos").
9 R. Wellek, "The Theory of Literary History," Atudes dedideesau quatridme Con-
grds de linguistes, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (Prague, 1936), p.
'79.
as a system of values which exists for each literary work as langue and
which becomes parole for the respondent-although incompletely and
never as a whole. 10 This theory, it is true, limits the subjectivity of the
impact, but it leaves open the question of which data can be used to in-
terpret the impact of a unique work on a certain public and to incor-
porate it into a system of values. In the meantime there are empirical
means which had never been thought of before-literary data which give
for each work a specific attitude of the audience (an attitude that pre-
cedes the psychological reaction as well as the subjective understanding
of the individual reader). As in the case of every experience, the first
literary experience of a previously unknown work demands a "previous
knowledge which is an element of experience itself and which makes it
possible that anything new we come across may also be read, as it
11
were, in some context of experience."
A literary work, even if it seems new, does not appear as something
absolutely new in an informational vacuum, but predisposes its readers
to a very definite type of reception by textual strategies, overt and
covert signals, familiar characteristics or implicit allusions. It awakens
memories of the familiar, stirs particular emotions in the reader
and with its "beginning" arouses expectations for the "middle and end,"
which can then be continued intact, changed, re-oriented or even
ironically fulfilled in the course of reading according to certain rules of
the genre or type of text. The psychical process in the assimilation of
a text on the primary horizon of aesthetic experience is by no means
only a random succession of merely subjective impressions, but the
carrying out of certain directions in a process of directed perception
which can be comprehended from the motivations which constitute it
and the signals which set it off and which can be described linguistically.
If, along with W. D. Stempel, one considers the previous horizon of
expectations of a text as paradigmatic isotopy, which is transferred to
an immanent syntactical horizon of expectations to the degree to
which the message grows, the process of reception becomes describable
in the expansion of a semiological procedure which arises between the
development and the correction of the system.'2 A corresponding
io In Slovo a slovenost, I, g92, cited by Wellek, "The Theory of Literary His-
tory," pp. 179 ff.
ii G. Buck, Lernen und Erfahrung (Stuttgart, 1967), p. 56, who refers here to
Husserl (Erfahrung und Urteil, esp. ? 8) but goes farther than Husserl in a lucid
description of negativity in the process of experience, which is of import-
ance for the horizon structure of aesthetic experience (cf. note 74 below).
12 W. D. Stempel, Pour une description des genres litteraires, in: Actes du
XIIe congrts internat. de linguistique Romane (Bucharest, 1968), also in Beitriige
zur Textlinguistik, ed. by W. D. Stempel (Munich, I970).
process of continuous horizon setting and horizon changing also deter-

mines the relation of the individual text to the succession of texts which
form the genre. The new text evokes for the reader (listener) the
horizon of expectations and rules familiar from earlier texts, which
are then varied, corrected, changed or just reproduced. Variation and
correction determine the scope, alteration and reproduction of the bor-
ders and structure of the genre.13 The interpretative reception of a text
always presupposes the context of experience of aesthetic perception.
The question of the subjectivity of the interpretation and the taste of
different readers or levels of readers can be asked significantly only
after it has been decided which transsubjective horizon of understanding
determines the impact of the text.
The ideal cases of the objective capability of such literary frames of
reference are works which, using the artistic standards of the reader,
have been formed by conventions of genre, style, or form. These pur-
posely evoke responses so that they can frustrate them. This can serve
not only a critical purpose but can even have a poetic effect. Thus
Cervantes in Don Quixote fosters the expectations of the old tales of
knighthood, which the adventures of his last knight then parody
seriously.14 Thus Diderot in the beginning of Jacques le Fataliste
evokes the expectations of the popular journey novel along with the
(Aristotelian) convention of the romanesque fable and the providence
peculiar to it, so that he can then confront the promised journey and
love novel with a completely unromanesque "verit6 de l'histoire": the
bizarre reality and moral casuistry of the inserted stories in which the
truth of life continually denies the lies of poetic fiction.15 Thus Nerval
in Chimeres cites, combines, and mixes a quintessence of well-known
romantic and occult motives to produce the expectation of a mythical
metamorphosis of the world only in order to show his renunciation of
romantic poetry. The mythical identification and relationships which
are familiar to the reader dissolve in the unknown to the same degree as
the attempted private myth of the lyrical "I" fails; the law of sufficient
13 See also my treatment of this in "Litte'rature mddie'vale et thdorie des genres,"

in Poe'tique, I (1970), 79-101, which will also shortly appear in expanded form in
volume I of Grundriss der romanischen Literaturen des Mittelalters, (Heidelberg,
1970).
14 According to the interpretation of H. J. Neuschafer, Der Sinn der Parodie
im Don Quijote, Studia Romanica, V (Heidelberg, 1963).
15 According to the interpretation of R. Warning, Allusion und Wirklichkeit in
Tristram Shandy und Jacques le Fataliste, Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur und
der sch6nen Kunste, IV (Munich, 1965), esp. pp. 8o ff.
information is broken and the darkness which has become expressive

gains a poetic function. 16
There is also the possibility of objectifying the expectations in works
which are historically less sharply delineated. For the specific recep-
tion which the author anticipates from the reader for a particular work
can be achieved, even if the explicit signals are missing, by three gen-
erally acceptable means: first, by the familiar standards or the inher-
ent poetry of the genre; second, by the implicit relationships to familiar
works of the literary-historical context; and third, by the contrast be-
tween fiction and reality, between the poetic and the practical function
of language, which the reflective reader can always realize while he
is reading. The third factor includes the possibility that the reader of
a new work has to perceive it not only within the narrow horizon of his
literary expectations but also within the wider horizon of his experience
of life. I shall return to this horizon structure and its ability to be ob-
jectivized by means of the hermeneutics of question and answer in the
discussion of the relationship between literature and practical life
(see VII).
III
If the horizon of expectations of a work is reconstructed in this way,
it is possible to determine its artistic nature by the nature and degree of
its effect on a given audience. If the "aesthetic distance" is considered
as the distance between the given horizon of expectations and the ap-
pearance of a new work, whose reception results in a "horizon change"
because it negates familiar experience or articulates an experience for
the first time, this aesthetic distance can be measured historically in the
spectrum of the reaction of the audience and the judgment of criti-
cism (spontaneous success, rejection or shock, scattered approval, grad-
ual or later understanding).
The way in which a literary work satisfies, surpasses, disappoints,
or disproves the expectations of its first readers in the historical moment
of its appearance obviously gives a criterion for the determination of its
aesthetic value. The distance between the horizon of expectations and
the work, between the familiarity of previous aesthetic experiences and
the "horizon change" 17 demanded by the response to new works, de-
termines the artistic nature of a literary work along the lines of the
aesthetics of reception: the smaller this distance, which means that no
I6 According to the interpretation of K. H. Stierle, Dunkelheit und Form in

Gerard de Nervals "Chimeres," Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur und der
sch6nen Kiinste, V (Munich, 1967), esp. pp. 55 and 91.
17 See Buck, pp. 64 ff., about this idea of Husserl in Lernen und Erfahrung.
demandsare made upon the receivingconsciousnessto make a change

on the horizon of unknown experience,the closer the work comes to
the realm of "culinary"or light reading. This last phrasecan be char-
acterizedfrom the point of view of the aestheticsof receptionin this
way: it demands no horizon change but actually fulfills expectations,
which are prescribedby a predominanttaste, by satisfyingthe demand
for the reproductionof familiarbeauty, confirmingfamiliarsentiments,
encouragingdreams, making unusual experiencespalatable as "sensa-
tions" or even raising moral problems,but only to be able to "solve"
them in an edifying manner when the solution is already obvious.18
On the other hand, if the artisticcharacterof a work is to be measured
by the aestheticdistancewith which it confrontsthe expectationsof its
first readers,it followsthat this distance,which at first is experiencedas
a happy or distastefulnew perspective,can disappearfor later readersto
the same degreeto which the originalnegativityof the workhas become
self-evidentand, as henceforthfamiliar expectation, has even become
part of the horizonof future aestheticexperience. Especiallythe classic
nature of so-calledmasterworksbelongsto this second horizonchange;
their self-evidentbeauty and their seemingly unquestionable"eternal
significance"bring them, from the point of view of the aestheticsof
reception,into dangerousproximitywith the irresistableconvincingand
enjoyable "culinary"art, and special effort is needed to read them
"againstthe grain" of accustomedexperienceso that their artisticna-
ture becomesevidentagain (comparewith IV).19
The relationshipbetweenliteratureand the public encompassesmore
than the fact that everywork has its specific, historicallyand sociologi-
cally determined audience, that every writer is dependent upon the
milieu, views and ideology of his readers and that literary success re-
18 Here I am incorporating the results of the discussion of "Kitsch," as a fringe
manifestation of aesthetics, which took place during the third colloquium of the
"Forschungsgruppe Poetik und Hermeneutik" in the volume, Die nicht mehr
schoinen Kiinste-Grenzphiinomene des Asthetischen, ed. H. R. Jauss (Munich,
1968). For the "culinary" approach, which presupposes mere light reading, the
same thing holds true as for "Kitsch,"namely, that the "demands of the consumers
are a priori satisfied" (P. Beylin), that "the fulfilled expectation becomes the
standard for the product" (W. Iser), or that "a work appears to be solving a prob-
lem when in reality it neither has nor solves a problem" (M. Imdahl), pp. 651-67.
I9 As also "Epigonentum" (Decadence), for this see B. Tomasevskij (in:
The'orie de la litterature. Texts des formalistes russes, ed. by T. Todorov [Paris
19651, p. 3o6): "L'apparition d'un genie 6quivaut toujours a une revolution lit-
teraire qui d6trone le canon dominant et donne le pouvoir aux proc6des jusqu'alors
subordonnes. [...] Les 6pigones r6petent une combinaison us6e des proc6des, et
d'originale et r6volutionnaire qu'elle 6tait, cette combinaison devient sterbo-
typde et traditionnelle. Ainsi les 6pigones tuent parfois pour longtemps I'aptitude
des contemporains a sentir la force esth6tique des exemples qu'ils imitent: ils dis-
cr6ditent leurs maitres."
I6 NEW LITERARY HISTORY
quires a book "which expresses what the group expects, a book which
presents the group with its own portrait .*.. ." 20 The objectivist de-
termination of literary success based on the congruence of the intent
of a work and the expectation of a social group always puts literary
sociology in an embarrassing position whenever it must explain later
or continuing effects. This is why R. Escarpit wants to presuppose a
"collective basis in space or time" for the "illusion of continuity" of a
writer, which leads to an astonishing prognosis in the case of Moliere:
he "is still young for the Frenchman of the 20oth century because his
world is still alive and ties of culture, point of view and language still
bind us to him ...but the ties are becoming ever weaker and Moliere
will age and die when the things which our culture has in common
with the France of Molire die" (p. I 17). As if Molikre had only re-
flected the manners of his time and had only remained successful be-
cause of this apparent intention! Where the congruence between
work and social group does not exist or no longer exists, as for example
in the reception of a work by a group which speaks a foreign language,
Escarpit is able to help himself by resorting to a "myth": "myths which
are invented by a later period which has become estranged from the
reality which they represent" (p. i i i). As if all reception of a work
beyond the first socially determined readers were only "distorted
echoes," only a consequence of "subjective myths" (p.I i i ) and did
not have its objective a priori in the received work which sets boundaries
and opens possibilities for later understanding! The sociology of litera-
ture does not view its object dialectically enough when it determines
the circle of writers, work and readers so one-sidedly. 21 The determina-
tion is reversible: there are works which at the moment of their pub-
lication are not directed at any specific audience, but which break
through the familiar horizon of literary expectations so completely that
an audience can only gradually develop for them.22 Then when the
20o R. Escarpit, Das Buch und der Leser: Entwurf einer Literatursoziologie
(Cologne and Opladen, i961; first German expanded edition of Sociologie de la lit-
te'rature [Paris, 1958], p. 16.
I
21 K. H. Bender, K6nig und Vasall: Untersuchungen zur Chanson de Geste des
XII. Jahrhunderts, Studia Romanica, XIII (Heidelberg, 1967), shows which step
is necessary in order to escape from this one-sided determination. In this history of
the early French epic the apparent congruence of feudal society and epic ideality is
represented as a process which is maintained through a continually changing dis-
crepancy between "reality" and "ideology," that is between the historical constella-
tions of feudal conflict and the poetic answers of the epic.
22 The much more sophisticated sociology of literature by Erich Auerbach
brought to light this aspect in the variety of epoch-making disruptions of the rela-
tionship between author and reader. See also the evaluation of F. Schalk in his edi-
tion of E. Auerbach's Gesiimmelte Aufsitze zur romanischen Philologie (Bern and
Munich, 1967), pp. xixf.
new horizon of expectations has achieved more general acceptance,

the authority of the changed aesthetic norm can become apparent from
the fact that readers will consider previously successful works as
obsolete and reject them. It is only in view of such a horizon change
that the analysis of literary effect achieves the dimension of a literary
history of readers23 and provides the statistical curves of the historical
recognition of the bestseller.
A literary sensation from the year 1857 may serve as an example of
this. In this year two novels were published: Flaubert's Madame Bo-
vary, which has since achieved world-wide fame, and Fanny by his
friend Feydeau, which is forgotten today. Although Flaubert's novel
brought with it a trial for obscenity, Madame Bovary was at first over-
shadowed by Feydeau's novel: Fanny had thirteen editions in one year
and success the likes of which Paris had not seen since Chateaubriand's
Atala. As far as theme is concerned, both novels fulfilled the expectations
of the new audience, which-according to Baudelaire's analysis-had
rejected anything romantic and scorned grand as well as naive passion. 24
They treated a trivial subject-adultery-the one in a bourgeois and
the other in a provincial milieu. Both authors understood how to give
a sensational twist to the conventional, rigid triangle which in the
erotic scenes surpassed the customary details. They presented the worn-
out theme of jealousy in a new light by reversing the expected rela-
tionship of the three classic roles. Feydeau has the youthful lover of the
"femme de trente ans" becoming jealous of his lover's husband, al-
though he has already reached the goal of his desires, and perishing
over this tormenting situation; Flaubert provides the adulteries of the
doctor's wife in the provinces, which Baudelaire presents as a sub-
lime form of "dandysme," with a surprising ending, so that the ridicu-
lous figure of the deceived Charles Bovary takes on noble traits at the
end. In official criticism of the time there are voices which reject Fanny
as well as Madame Bovary as a product of the new school of "realisme,"
which they accuse of denying all ideals and attacking the ideas on which
23 See H. Weinrich, "FUir eine Literaturgeschichte des Lesers," Merkur, XXI

(November, 1967). Just as the linguistics of the speaker, which was earlier custom-
ary, has been replaced by the linguistics of the listener, Weinrich pleads for a
methodical consideration for the perspective of the reader in literary history and
thereby supports my aims. Weinrich shows especially how the empirical methods
of literary sociology can be supplemented by the linguistic and literary interpretation
of the role of the reader, which is implicit in the work.
24 In "Madame Bovary par Gustave Flaubert," Baudelaire, Oeuvres completes,
Pl6iade ed. (Paris, I951), p. 998: "The last years of Louis-Philippe witnessed the
last explosions of a spirit still excitable by the play of the imagination; but the new
novelist found himself faced with a completely worn-out society-worse than worn-
out-stupified and gluttonous, with a horror only of fiction and love only for pos-
session."
the orderof the societyin the Second Empirewas based.25 The horizon
of expectationsof the public of I857, here only sketchedin, which did
not expect anything great in the way of novels after the death of
Balzac,26explains the differing success of the two novels only when
the question of the effect of their narrativeform is posed. Flaubert's
innovation in form, his principle of "impersonaltelling" impassibilitJ
which Barbey d'Aurevilly attacked with this comparison: if a
story-tellingmachine could be made of Englishsteel, it would function
the same as MonsieurFlaubert27),must have shockedthe same audi-
ence which was offeredthe excitingcontentsof Fanny in the personable
tone of a confessionalnovel. It could also have found in Feydeau'sde-
scriptions28popularideals and frustrationsof the level of societywhich
sets the style, and it could delight unrestrainedlyin the lascivious
main scene in which Fanny (without knowing that her lover is
watching from the balcony) seduces her husband-for their moral
indignation was forestalled by the reaction of the unfortunate wit-
ness. However, as Madame Bovary, which was understood at first
only by a small circle of knowledgeablereaders and called a turning
point in the history of the novel, became a world-wide success, the
group of readerswho were formed by this book sanctioned the new
canon of expectations,which made the weaknessesof Feydeau-his
flowery style, his modish effects, his lyrical confessionalcliches-un-
bearableand relegatedFanny to the class of bestsellersof yesterday.
IV
The reconstructionof the horizon of expectations,on the basis of
which a work in the past was created and received, enablesus to find
25 Cf. ibid., p. 999, as well as the accusation, speech for the defense, and verdict of
the Bovary trial in Flaubert, Oeuvres, Pl6iade edition (Paris,
i951), I, 649-717, esp.
717; also about Fanny, E. Montegut, "Le roman intime de la litterature r6aliste,"
Revue des deux mondes, XVIII (1858), 196-2 3, esp. 201 and 209 ff.
26 As Baudelaire testifies ("Madame Bovary par Gustave Flaubert," p. 996):
"for since the disappearance of Balzac ... all curiosity relative to the novel has been
stilled and slumbers."
27 For these and other contemporary verdicts see H. R. Jauss "Die beiden Fas-
sungen von Flauberts 'Education Sentimentale,' " Heidelberger Jahrbiicher, II
(1958), 96-1 16, esp. 97.
28 See the excellent analysis by the contemporary critic E. Montegut (see note
25), who explains in detail why the dreams and the figures in Feydeau's novel are
typical for the readers in the section between the Bourse and the boulevard Mont-
martre (p. 2o09): they need an "alcool po6tique," enjoy seeing "their vulgar adven-
tures of yesterday and their vulgar projects of tomorrow poeticized" (p. 21o) and
have an "idolatry of the material" by which term Montegut understands the in-
gredients of the "dream factory" of 1959-"a sort of sanctimonious admiration,
almost devout, for furniture, wallpaper, dress, escapes, like a perfume of patchouli,
from each of its pages" (p. 201).
the questions to which the text originally answered and thereby to dis-
cover how the reader of that day viewed and understood the work.
This approach corrects the usually unrecognized values of a classical
concept of art or of an interpretation that seeks to modernize, and it
avoids the recourse to a general spirit of the age, which involves circular
reasoning. It brings out the hermeneutic difference between past and
present ways of understanding a work, points up the history of its recep-
tion -providing both approaches-and thereby challenges as platoniz-
ing dogma the apparently self-evident dictum of philological metaphy-
sics that literature is timelessly present and that it has objective meaning,
determined once and for all and directly open to the interpreter at any
time.
The method of the history of reception29 is essential for the under-
standing of literary works which lie in the distant past. Whenever the
writer of a work is unknown, his intent not recorded, or his relationship
to sources and models only indirectly accessible, the philological question
of how the text is "properly" to be understood, that is according to its
intention and its time, can best be answered if the text is considered in
contrast to the background of the works which the author could expect
his contemporary public to know either explicitly or implicitly. For ex-
ample, the creator of the oldest branches of the Roman de Renart as-
sumed-as his prologue testifies-that his listeners knew romances like
the story of Troy, Tristan, heroic epics (chansons de geste) and verse
fables (fabliaux) and that they were, therefore, curious about the "un-
precedented war of the two barons, Renart and Ysengrin," which was
to overshadow everything familiar. The works and genres which are
called to mind are all ironically alluded to in the course of the poem.
The success of this work, which rapidly became famous even outside of
France, and which for the first time took a position opposed to all heroic
and courtly poetry up to that time, 30can probably be explained by this
change of horizon.
Philological investigation long misunderstood the original satirical
29 Examples of this method, which not only follows the fame, image, and in-
fluence of a writer through history but also examines the historical conditions and
changes in his understanding, are rare. The following should be mentioned: G. F.
Ford, Dickens and His Readers (Princeton, 1955); A. Nisin, Les Oeuvres et les
siecles (Paris, 1960) : discusses Virgil, Dante et nous, Ronsard, Corneille, Racine;
E. Ldimmert, "Zur Wirkungsgeschichte Eichendorffs in Deutschland," Festschrift
fiir Richard Alewyn, ed. H. Singer and B. von Wiese, (Cologne and Graz, I967).
The methodological problem of the step from the impact to the reception of a work
is shown most sharply by F. Vodicka in Die Problematik der Rezeption von Nerudas
Werk (i 941, now in Struktur vyvoje [Prague, 1969]), where he discusses the changes
of the work which are realized in its successive aesthetic perceptions.
30 See H. R. Jauss, Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen Tierdichtung (Tiibingen,
1959), esp. chap. IV A and D.
intention of the medieval Reineke Fuchs and along with it the ironic-
didactic sense of the analogy between animals and human nature, be-
cause ever since Jacob Grimm it had been wedded to the romantic
notion of pure nature poetry and naive animal fairy tales. To give a
second example for modernizing values, one could reproach French
epic research since Bedier for continuing the criteria of Boileau's poetics
--without realizing it-and judging literature which is not classical by
the standards of simplicity, harmony of the parts and the whole, prob-
ability, and others.3' The philological method of criticism is obviously
not protected by its historical objectivity from the interpreter who,
though supposedly eliminating his subjective evaluation, unconsciously
raises his preconceived aesthetic sense to an unacknowledged standard
and unwittingly modernizes the meaning of a text from the past. Who-
ever believes that the "timeless truth" of a work must reveal itself to the
interpreter directly and through simple absorption in the text as if he
had a point of view outside of history, disregarding all "errors" of his
predecessors and of the historical reception, "conceals the fabric of
impact and history in which historical consciousness itself stands;" he
disavows the "preconditions, which are neither intentional nor random
but all-inclusive, which govern his own understanding," and can only
feign objectivity "which actually depends on the legitimacy of the ques-
tions." 32
Hans Georg Gadamer, whose criticism of historical objectivism
I am incorporating here, described in Wahrheit und Methode the prin-
ciple of the history of impact, which seeks to show the reality of history
in understanding itself, 33 as an application of the logic of question and
answer to historical tradition. Continuing Collingwood's thesis that
"one can only understand a text when one understands the question
which it answers," 34 Gadamer suggests that the reconstructed question
can no longer stand in its original context because this historical context
is always surrounded by the context of our present: "Understanding is
always the process of fusion of such horizons which seem to exist inde-
pendently."35 The historical question cannot exist independently; it
has to be fused with another question which will result from our attempt
to integrate the past. 36 This logic of question and answer is the solution
31 A. Vinaver, "A la recherche d'une po6tique m6di6vale," Cahiers de civilisa-

tion medidvale,II (I959), 1-16.
H. G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode (Tiibingen,
32 I960), pp. 284-85.
33 Ibid., p. 283.
34 Ibid., p. 352.
35 Ibid., p. 289.
36 Ibid., p. 356.
LITERARY HISTORY AS A CHALLENGE TO LITERARY THEORY 2I
to what Rene Wellek described as the problem of literary judgment:

should the philologist evaluate a literary work according to the perspec-
tive of the past, according to the viewpoint of the present or according
to the "judgment of the centuries?"37 The actual criteria of the past
could be so narrow that their use would only make a work, whose his-
torical impact had a great potential, poorer. The aesthetic judgment
of the present would favor a group of works which appeal to the modern
taste and would evaluate all other works unjustly because their function
in their own day is no longer evident. And the history of the impact
itself, as instructive as it may be, is "as authority open to the same criti-
cism as the authority of the writer's contemporaries."38 Wellek argues
that it is impossible to avoid one's own opinion; one must only make
it as objective as possible by doing what ever scholar does-"isolating
the subject." 39 This view, however, is not a solution for the dilemma,
but a relapse into objectivism. The "judgment of the centuries" of a
literary work is more than just "the collected judgments of other read-
ers, critics, audiences and even professors";4 it is the successive de-
velopment of the potential meaning which is present in a work and
which is gradually realized in its historical reception by knowledgeable
criticism. This judgment must, however, take place in contact with
tradition and thus cause a controlled fusion of the horizons.
The agreement between my attempts at basing a possible literary
history on an aesthetics of reception and H. G. Gadamer's principle of
a history of impact ends, however, at the point where Gadamer wants
to elevate the concept of the classical to the prototype of all historical
contact between past and present. His pronouncement, "whatever is
called 'classical' does not first require the surmounting of historical dis-
tance-for it continuously accomplishes this surmounting itself,"41 de-
nies the constitutive relationship of question and answer in historical tra-
dition. If classical is "what is said for the present in such a way as if it
were said especially for it," 42then it would not be a matter of looking for
the question that the classical text answers. Doesn't one find described
in the classical, which "means itself and interprets itself,"43 simply the
37 Wellek, "Theory of Literary History," p. 184; ibid., "Der Begriff der Evolu-
tion in der Literaturgeschichte," Grundbegriffe der Literaturkritik (Stuttgart, 1965),
pp. 20-22.
38 Wellek, "Der Begriff der Evolution," p. 20.
39 Ibid.
4o0 Ibid.
41 Wahrheit und Methode, p. 274.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
result of what I called the second horizon change: the unquestioning

acceptance as self-evident of a so-called masterwork, which conceals its
negativity in the retrospective horizon of an exemplary tradition and
necessitates our regaining the "right horizon of questioning" in the
face of guaranteed classicism? The classical work, too, call for its con-
scious reception and thus for a realization of the "tension between text
and present." 44The concept of the classical which interprets itself, taken
from Hegel, must lead to a reversal of the historical relationship be-
tween question and answer45 and contradicts the principle of the history
of impact that understanding is "not only reproductive but also pro-
ductive." 46
This contradiction is evidently determined by Gadamer's holding
fast to his concept of classical art, which has not been able to support a
general basis of an aesthetics of reception beyond the period of hu-
manism. It is the concept of mimesis, understood as "recognition," as
Gadamer presents it in his ontological explanation of experience in art:
"What one actually experiences in a work of art and what one looks for
is, how true it is, that is, how much it makes one know and recognize
the world and one's own self."47 This concept of art may hold true for
the humanistic period, but not for the preceding medieval period and
definitely not for the succeeding period of modernity, in which the
aesthetics of mimesis has lost its authority like the metaphysics of sub-
stance (Erkenntnis des Wesens) which founded it. But the cognitive
function of art does not end with this epochal development,48 which
demonstrates that art was in no way bound to the classical function of
recognition. The work of art can also communicate knowledge which
does not fit the Platonic scheme since it can anticipate ways to future
experience, imagine as yet untested models of perception and conduct,
or contain an answer to new questions.49 In Gadamer's conception of
44 Ibid., p. 290.
45 This reversal becomes obvious in the chapter "Die Logik von Frage und Ant-
wort (ibid., pp. 351-360), where Gadamer at first demands of the traditional
text (also the unclassical text or the simply historical text!) per se "that it ask a
question of the interpreter. Thus exposition always includes reference to this ques-
tion which has been asked. Understanding a text means understanding this ques-
tion." The further argument shows, however, that a past text cannot ask a ques-
tion of us but that it must be revealed first by the answer, which the text contains.
46 Ibid., p. 280.
47 Ibid., p. Iog.
48 See ibid., p. iI o.
49 That also follows from formalistic aesthetics and especially from V. Sklovskij's
theory of "Entautomatisierung"; see also V. Erlich's reply, Russischer Formalismus
(Munich, 1964), P. 84: "Since the 'tortuous, consciously restrained form' places
artificial barriers between the perceiving subject and the perceived object, the chain
of familiar connections and automatic reactions is broken; in this manner we
become able to really see the things instead of merely recognizing them."
the "classical," the history of the impact of literature lacks just this
virtual meaning and productive function in the process of experience.
For to think of the "classical" as overcoming by itself the historical dis-
tance between the past and the present is to hypostatize tradition.
Gadamer does not take into account the fact that classical art at the
time of its creation did not yet appear classical, but may rather have
once opened new ways of seeing things and may have formed new ex-
periences, which only in historical perspective-in recognition of what
is now familiar-give the appearance that the work contains a timeless
truth.
The impact of even the greatest literary work of the past cannot be
compared either with an event which communicates itself automatically
or with an emanation: the tradition of art presupposes a dialogue be-
tween the present and the past, according to which a past work cannot
answer and speak to us until a present observer has posed the question
which retrieves it from its retirement. In Wahrheit und Methode, when
understanding-analogous to Heidegger's Seinsgeschehen-is thought
of as "becoming part of a self-sufficient tradition in which the past and
the present are continuously in mutual mediation,"50 the "productive
moment which lies in understanding"51 must be short-changed. This
productive function of progressive understanding, which necessarily
also includes the criticizing and even forgetting of tradition, forms the
basis of the aesthetics of reception of literary history outlined in the
following chapter. This outline must consider the historical relevance
of literature in three ways: diachronically in the relationship of literary
works based upon reception (see V), synchronically within the frame
of reference of literature of the same period as well as in the sequence of
such frames of reference (see VI) and finally in the relationship of the
immanent literary development to the general process of history (see
VII).
V
The theory of the aesthetics of reception not only allows the under-
standing of the meaning and form of a literary work within the histori-
cal development of its reception. It also demands the ordering of the
individual work in its "literary series" so that its historical position and
significance in the context of literary experience can be recognized.
Literary history based on the history of reception and impact will reveal
itself as a process in which the passive reception of the reader and critic
50 Wahrheit undMethode, p. 275.

5I Ibid., p. 28o.
changes into the active reception and new production of the author,
or in which-stated differently-a subsequent work solves formal
and moral problems that the last work raised and may then itself present
new problems.
How can the individual work, which determines chronological order
in positivistic literary history and thereby superficially turns it into a
"fact," be brought back into its historical order and thus be understood
as an "event" again? The theory of the formalist school seeks to solve
this problem with its principle of "literary evolution." In this theory
the new work appears against a background of previous or competing
works, reaches the "high ridge" of a literary epoch as a successful form,
is reproduced and thereby continuously automated so that finally, when
the next form has won out, it vegetates on as a worn-out genre and thus
as a part of commonplace literature. If one analyzed and described a
literary period according to this program which so far has hardly been
begun52 one might expect a result far superior to the conventional liter-
ary history. It would relate the separate categories, which stand side by
side unconnected or at least connected only by a sketchy general history
(for example, works of one author, one direction or one style, as well as
different genres) to each other and disclose the evolutionary give and
take of function and form.53 Works either striking, related, or inter-
dependent would appear as factors in a process which would no longer
have to be aimed at one central point because, as a dialectic producing
new forms, the process requires no teleology. Seen in this way, the
dynamics of literary evolution would eliminate the dilemma of selec-
tive criteria. The unique criterion is the work entering the literary
series as a new form, not the reproduction of worn-out forms, styles and
genres which now move to the background until a new turn in the
evolutionary development makes them perceptible again. Finally, in the
formalist plan of literary history, which is understood as "evolution"
and, contrary to the normal meaning of this term, rejects every directed
course, the historical character of a work would remain the same as its
artistic character. The evolutionary meaning and characteristics of a
literary work presuppose innovation as the decisive feature just as does
52 In the 1927 article, "Tber literarische Evolution," by Jurii Tynjanov (Die

literarischen Kunstmittel und die Evolution in der Literatur [Frankfort, 1967], pp.
37-60), this program is presented most exactly. It was only partially fulfilled-as J.
Striedter informed me-in the treatment of problems of structural change in the
history of literary genres, as in the volume Russkaja proza, Voprosy poetiki, VIII
(Leningrad, 1926). See also J. Tynjanov, "Die Ode als rhetorische Gattung"
(1922), Texte der russischen Formalisten, II, ed. J. Striedter (Munich, 1970).
53 J. Tynjanov, "(Tber literarische Evolution," p. 59.
the tenet that the work of art is to be perceived against the background
of other artistic works. 54
The formalist theory of "literary evolution" is certainly one of the
most significant beginnings in the renovation of literary history. The
recognition that historical changes are also occurring within a system
in the field of literature, the attempt to functionalize literary de-
velopment, and last but not least the theory of automation are achieve-
ments which must be retained, even if the one-sided canonization of
the changes requires correction. Criticism has sufficiently pointed out
the weaknesses of the formalist theory of evolution: mere opposition
or aesthetic variation is not enough to explain the growth of literature;
the question of the direction of the change of literary forms remains un-
answered; innovation alone cannot assure artistic value; and the rela-
tionship between literary evolution and social change cannot be dis-
pensed with by simple negation.55 My thesis VII answers the last
question; the other questions demand that the descriptive literary theory
of the formalists be opened up to the dimension of historical experience
by means of the aethetics of reception. The historical position of the
present observer as literary historian would have to be included in
this experience.
The description of literary evolution as a never-ending fight of the
new with the old or as the alternation of canonizing and automation
of forms reduces the historical character of literature to the one-dimen-
sional reality of its changes and limits historical understanding to recog-
nition of these changes. The changes of the literary order do not be-
come a historical process until along with the opposition of old and new
forms is recognized its specific mutual mediation. This mutual media-
tion, including the step from the old to the new form in the interaction
of work and recipient (public, critic, new producer), past events and
successive receptions, can be conceived of formally and substantially as
the problem "which every work of art as a horizon of possible
solutions creates and leaves behind." 56 But the mere description of the
structural changes and new artistic means of a work does not necessarily
lead to this problem, nor back to the work's function within the histori-
54 "A work of art is viewed as a positive value if it changes the structure of the
preceding period; it is seen as a negative value if it adopts the structure without
changing it." (J. Mukarovsky, cited by R. Wellek, "Der Begriff der Evolution,"
op. cit. pp. 42 ff.
55 See V. Erlich, Russischer Formalismus, pp. 284-287, and R. Wellek, "Der
Begriff der Evolution," op cit. pp. 42 ff. See also J. Striedter, Texte der russischen
Formalisten, I (Munich, 1969), Introduction, Section X.
56 H. Blumenberg in Poetik und Hermeneutik, III (see note 18) p. 692.
cal order. In order to determine this function, that is, in order to recog-
nize the remaining problem which the new work answers in the histori-
cal succession, the interpreter must call upon his own experience, be-
cause the past horizon of old and new forms, problems and solutions,
can only be recognized after it has been further mediated by the present
horizon of the work. Literary history as "literary evolution" presupposes
the historical process of aesthetic reception and production up to the ob-
server's time as a condition for the communicating of all formal con-
trasts or "qualities of difference." 57
Founding "literary evolution" on an aesthetics of reception not only
restores its lost direction by making the position of the literary historian
the temporary term of this process. This procedure also emphasizes the
fundamentally historical dimension of literary experience by stressing
the variable distance between the immediate and the potential mean-
ing of a literary work. This means that the artistic character of a work,
whose potential importance as criterion is reduced to that of innovation
by formalism, does not by any means have to be immediately perceiva-
ble in the horizon of its first appearance, nor does it have to be exhausted
by the opposition between old and new forms. The distance between
the immediate first perception of a work and its potential meanings, or,
to put it differently, the opposition between the new work and the ex-
pectations of its first readers, can be so great that a long process of recep-
tion is necessary in order to catch up with what first was unexpected and
unusable. It can happen that the potential significance of a work
may remain unrecognized until the evolution of a newer form widens
the horizon and only then opens up the understanding of the misunder-
stood earlier form. Thus the dark lyrics of Mallarme and his school
prepared the way for a re-evaluation of baroque poetry, which had long
been neglected and forgotten, and especially for the new philosophical
interpretation and "rebirth" of G6ngora. There are many examples of
how a new literary form can open an approach to forgotten literature;
they include the so-called "renaissances"-so-called because the term
implies the appearance of an automatic rebirth and often obscures the
fact that literary tradition does not transmit itself. That is, the literary
past can only return when a new reception has brought it into the
present again-whether it be that a different aesthetic attitude has in-
57 According to V. Erlich. Russischer Formalismus, p. 281, this concept means
three things to the formalists: "on the level of the representation of reality 'quality
of difference' stands for the 'avoidance' of the real, thus for creative deformation.
On the level of language the expression means the avoidance of usual speech usage.
On the level of literary dynamics finally . . .a change in the prevailing artistic
standard."
tentionally taken up the past, or that a new phase of literary evaluation

has expectedly illuminated past works. 58
The new is not only an aesthetic category. It cannot be explained
completely by the factors of innovation, surprise, surpassing, rearrange-
ment and alienation, to which the formalist theory assigned utmost
importance. The new becomes an historical category when the dia-
chronic analysis of literature is forced to face the questions of which
historical forces really make the literary work new, to what degree
this newness is recognizable in the historical moment of its appearance,
what distance, route, or circumlocution of understanding were required
for its full realization, and whether the moment of this realiza-
tion was so effective that it could change the perspective of the old and
thereby the canonization of the literary past.59 How the relationship
of poetic theory and aesthetically productive practice appears in this
light has already been discussed in another context.60 Certainly the
possibilities of the interaction between production and reception in the
historical change of aesthetic attitude are not exhausted by these re-
marks. I only want to indicate the dimension into which a diachronic
study of literature would move, since it can no longer remain satisfied
with considering a chronological series of literary "facts" as the historical
appearance of literature.
VI
The results which the separation and methodological complementari-
ness of diachronic and synchronic analysis have achieved in the study of
language provide grounds for improving upon the diachronic observa-
tion which until now has been the customary method in the study of
literary history. Since it reveals changes in aesthetic attitudes the per-
spective of the history of reception always discovers functional connec-
tions between the understanding of new works and the meaning of old
works. This perspectivecan also make it possibleto take a synchronic
cross-section of a moment in the process, to arrange heterogeneous, con-
temporaneous works into equivalent, opposing, and hierarchical groups,
and thereby to discover a general system of relationships in the litera-
58 For the first possibility the (anti-romantic) re-evaluation of Boileau and the
classic contrainte poetics through Gide and Vale'ry can be introduced; for the second
the tardy discovery of H6lderlin's Hymns or Novalis's concept of future poetry (for
the last see H. R. Jauss in Romanische Forschungen, LXXVII [1965], I74-83).
59 Thus, since the reception of the "minor romantic" Nerval, whose Chimeres
only attracted attention under the influence of Mallarm6, the canonized "major
romantics," Lamartine, Vigny, Musset and a large part of the "rhetorical" lyrics
of Victor Hugo have been forced more and more into the background.
60o Poetik und Hermeneutik, II (Immanente Aesthetik-Aesthetische Reflexion),
ed. W. Iser (Munich, 1966), esp. pp. 395-418.
ture of one historical moment. A new literary history could be de-

veloped from this if other cross-sections were made earlier and later
to illustrate the literary changes of structure in epoch-making mo-
ments.
Siegfried Kracauer has questioned most decisively the primacy of
diachronic observation in history. His study on "Time and History" 61
challenges the claim of general history that, within the homogeneous
medium of chronological time, it can make events of all areas of life
comprehensible as a unified process consistent in every historical mo-
ment. This understanding of history, still under the influence of
Hegel's idea of the "objective spirit" (objektiver Geist), presupposes
that everything which happens at one time is determined to the same
degree by the meaning of this moment and thus conceals the fact that
things which occur at the same time are not really simultaneous. 62 For
the variety of events of one historical moment, which the universal
historian, as an exponent of a unified system, believes that he grasps,
are de facto moments of completely different time curves, determined by
the laws of their special history,63 as becomes obvious in the discrep-
ancies of the different "histories"-of art, of law, of economics, political
history, etc.: "The shaped times of the diverse areas overshadow the
uniform flow of time. Any historical period must therefore be imagined
as a mixture of events which emerge at different moments of their own
time." 64
It is not the question here whether this assertion presupposes a prim-
ary inconsistency in history--which would mean that the consistency of
general history only appears retrospectively from the viewpoint and
presentation of the historian who imparts unity to it-or whether the
radical skepticism of "historical reason" which leads Kracauer from the
pluralism of a chronological and morphological passage of time to the
basic antinomy of the general and the special in history, really proves
61 In Zeugnisse-Theodor W. Adorno zum 60. Geburtstag (Frankfort, 1963),

pp. 50-64, and also in "General History and the Aesthetic Approach," Poetik und
Hermeneutik, III. See also History: The Last Things Before the Last (New York,
1969), esp. Chap. VI: "Ahasverus, or The Riddle of Time," pp. 139-63.
62 "First, in identifying history as a process in chronological time, we tacitly
assume that our knowledge of the moment at which an event emerges from the flow
of time will help us to account for its appearance. The date of the event is a value-
laden fact. Accordingly, all events in the history of a people, a nation, or a civiliza-
tion which take place at a given moment are supposed to occur then and there for
reasons bound up, somehow, with that moment." (Kracauer, History, p. I4I.)
63 This concept is discussed by H. Foccillon, The Life of Forms in Art (New
York, 1948), and G. Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of
Things (New Haven and London, 1962).
64 S. Kracauer, History, p. 53.
that universal history is philosophically untenable today. However, it

can be said for the field of literature that Kracauer's insights into the
"co-existence of the simultaneous and the unsimultaneous," 65 far from
leading historical knowledge into a dilemma, emphasize the possibility
and necessity of uncovering the historical dimension of literary appear-
ances in synchronic cross-sections. For it follows from these insights
that the chronological fiction of the moment which determines all
simultaneous occurrences corresponds as little to the concept of the
historicity of literature as does the morphological fiction of a homogen-
eous literary order in which all occurrences follow immanent laws one
after the other. Purely diachronic observation, no matter how care-
fully it can explain changes in the history of a genre according to the
immanent logic of innovation and automation, problem and solution,
only reaches a truly historical dimension when it transcends the mor-
phological canon, confronts the work important in the history of re-
ception with the forgotten conventional works of the genre yet does not
ignore its relationship to the literary surroundings in which it had to as-
sert itself among works in other genres.
The historical character of literature appears exactly at the intersec-
tion of the diachronic and synchronic approaches. It must be possible
to analyze the literary horizon of a certain historical moment as that
synchronic system in which simultaneously appearing works can be re-
ceived diachronically in relation, and in which the work can appear as
of current interest or not, as fashionable, out-dated or of lasting value,
or before its time or after it. 66 If simultaneously appearing literature-
seen from the point of view of the aesthetics of production-breaks
down into a heterogeneous variety of the unsimultaneous, that is, of
works formed by the different moments of the "shaped time" of their
genre (as the apparently present starry sky moves apart astronomically
at very different rates), then this variety of literary works moves together
65 Poetik und Hermeneutik, III (see note I8), p. 569. The term "simultaneity
of different things," with which F. Sengle, "Aufgaben der heutigen Literaturge-
schtsschreibung," Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen, CC (1964),
pp. 247 ff., refers to the same phenomenon, fails to consider one dimension of the
problem which becomes evident from his belief that this difficulty of literary his-
tory can be solved by simply combining comparative methods and modern interpre-
tation ("that is, carrying out comparative interpretations on a wider base," p. 249).
66 In 1960 R. Jakobson developed similar assertions in a lecture which is now
Chap. XI, "Linguistique et po6tique," of his book, Essais de linguistique generale
(Paris, 1963). See especially p. 212: "La description synchronique envisage non
seulement la production litteraire d'une epoque donnee, mais aussi cette partie de la
tradition litteraire qui est rest6e vivante ou a et6 ressuscitee A l'epoque en ques-
tion. . . . La po6tique historique, tout comme l'histoire du language, si elle se veut
vraiment comprehensive, doit etre concue comme une superstructure, batie sur une
serie de descriptions synchroniques successives."
again for readers who perceive them as works of their present and relate
them to each other in a meaningful unity of a common horizon of liter-
ary expectations, memories, and anticipations.
Since every synchronic system must keep its past and its future as
indivisible structural elements,67 the synchronic cross-section analysis
of the literary production at one historical point implies further
cross-sections earlier and later. Analogous to the history of the language,
constant and variable factors can then be localized as functions of the
system. For literature is also a sort of grammar or syntax with relatively
firm relationships of its own: the structure of the traditional and un-
canonized genres, styles of expression, and rhetorical figures. Opposed to
this is the more variable field of semantics: the literary themes, arche-
types, symbols, and metaphors. This is why one can attempt to draw an
analogy for literary history to what Hans Blumenberg has postulated,
explained through examples of the changes in epochs and especially
the resulting relations of Christian theology and philosophy, and estab-
lished with his historical logic of question and answer for the history
of philosophy: a "formal system of the interpretation of reality . . .
within the structure of which the changes can be localized which con-
stitute the process of history up to the radicalness of the change of
epochs." 68 Once the substantial conception of a self-continuing literary
tradition has been replaced by a functional explanation of the process
relationship of production and reception, it must be possible to see be-
hind the transformation of literary forms and content that change of
positions in a literary system of the interpretation of reality which makes
the change of horizons in the process of aesthetic experience intelligible.
On these premises a principle of presentation of a literary history
could be developed which would neither have to follow the all too fami-
liar high route of the traditional classics nor wander in the valleys of
the complete descriptions of all texts which can no longer be historically
articulated. The problem of the selection of the works significant for a
new history of literature can be solved with the help of the synchronic
view in a way which has not yet been tried: a change of horizon in the
historical process of the "literary evolution" need not be seen through-
out the whole complex of diachronic fact and relations, but can also
be determined by the altered make-up of the synchronic literary sys-
67 J. Tynjanov and R. Jacobson, "Probleme der Literatur und Sprachforschung"

(1928), Kursbuch, V (Frankfurt, 1966), 75: "The history of the system itself pre-
sents another system. Pure synchrony proves to be illusory: each synchronic system
has its past and its future as an inseparable structural element of this system."
68 First in "Epochenschwelle und Rezeption," Philosophische Rundschau, VI
(1958), Ioi ff., most recently in Die Legitimitiit der Neuzeit (Frankfort, 1966),
see esp. pp. 41 ff.
temrn and by further cross-section analyses. In principle a presentation

of literature in the historical succession of such systems, analyzed at
arbitrary points of time, would be possible. The historical dimension
of literature, its eventful continuity which is lost in traditionalism as in
positivism, can only be rediscovered if the literary historian finds cross-
sections and points out works which articulate the process character of
"literary evolution" in its history-making moments and epochal caesu-
ras. But it is neither statistics nor subjective caprice on the part of the
literary historian which decide about this historical articulation but the
history of impact, that is, what results from the event and what from
the present perspective constitutes the continuity of literature as the
historical explanation of its present status.
VII
The task of literary history is not completed until the literary work is
not only synchronically and diachronically presented in the sequence
of its systems but also seen as special history in its own unique relation-
ship to general history. The fact that the historian can find in the litera-
ture of all times a typified, idealized, satirized, or utopian picture of
social existence does not completely explain this relationship. The social
function becomes manifest only where the literary experience of the
reader enters the horizon of expectations of his life, forms his interpreta-
tion of the world, and thereby has an effect on his social actions.
The functional relationship of literature and society is usually dem-
onstrated by traditional literary sociology within the narrow confines
of a method that has only outwardly replaced the classical principle of
imitatio naturae with the definition that literature is the representation
of a given reality and that was forced to sanction a period-determined
concept of style-"Realism" of the nineteenth century the literary
category par excellence. Even the presently fashionable literary "struc-
turalism," which is, often with doubtful justification, founded on the
archetypal criticism of Northrop Frye or on the structural anthropology
of Claude L6vi-Strauss, retains the basically classical aesthetics of repre-
sentation and its schematization of "reflection" (Widerspiegelung) and
"typification." 69 By interpreting the findings of structural linguistics
and literary scholarship as archaic, anthropological constants clothed
in literary myths (an interpretation often made possible only by the
allegorization of the text) it reduces historical existence to structures
69 C. LUvi-Strauss himself testifies to this involuntarily but extremely impressively

in his attempt to "interpret" one of R. Jakobson's linguistic descriptions of Baude-
laire's poem Les chats with the help of his structural method; see in L'Homme, II
(1962), 21.
of an age-old social nature and literature to its mythic or symbolic ex-

pression. Thus exactly the predominantly social, or society-forming
function of literature is missed. Literary structuralism does not ask-
just as Marxist and formalist literary scholarship before it did not ask-
how literature "itself helps to determine the idea of society which is its
prerequisite" and which it has already helped to determine through
the process of history. With these words Gerhard Hess in his lecture,
"Das Bild der Gesellschaft in der franzbisischenLiteratur" (1954), for-
mulated the unsolved problem of the connection between literary
history and sociology and thereby explained to what degree litera-
ture can claim to have first discovered certain laws of social ex-
istence.70 Answering the question of the society-forming function
of literature from the point of view of the aesthetics of recep-
tion exceeds the competence of the traditional aesthetics of representa-
tion. The attempt to close the gap between literary-historical and so-
ciological research by using the methods of the aesthetics of reception is
simplified by the fact that the concept of the horizon of expectations,71
has also played a role in the axioms of sociology since Karl Mann-
heim.72 It is also the main point of a methodological essay, "Natur-
gesetze und theoretische Systeme" by Karl R. Popper, who anchors the
scholarly forming of theories in the pre-scholarly experience of life.
Popper develops the problem of observation from the presupposition of
a "horizon of expectations" and thus provides a basis of comparison
for any attempt to determine the specific achievement of literature with-
in the general process of experience and to define its relationships with
other forms of social behavior. 73
According to Popper, the procedure of scholarship shares with pre-
scholarly experience the fact that every hypothesis, like every observa-
tion, always presupposes expectations: "namely those that constitute the
horizon of expectations, a horizon that for the first time makes the ob-
servations significant and consequently gives them their place within
the order of observations."74 For in the procedure of scholarship as in
the experience of life, the most significant moment is the "disappoint-
70 Now in Gesellschaft-Literatur--Wissenchaft: Gesammelte Schriften 1938-

1966, ed. by H. R. Jauss and C. Mueller-Daehn (Munich, 1967), PP. 1-13, esp. pp.
2 and 4-
71 I have introduced this concept first in Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen
Tierdichtung (Tiibingen, 1959), see esp. pp. 153, 18o, 225, 271; further Archiv fiir
das Studium der neueren Sprachen, CXCVII (1961), 223-25.
72 K. Mannheim, Mensch und Gesellschaft in Zeitalter des Umbaus (Darm-
stadt, 1958), pp. 212 ff.
73 In Theorie und Realitiit, ed. by H. Albert (Tilbingen, 1964), pp. 87-102.
74 Ibid., p. 91.
ment of expectations": "it resembles the experience of a blind man run-
ning into an obstacle and thereby learning of its existence. We gain
contact with 'reality' by disproving our assumptions. The refutation
of our errors in the positive experience that we gain from reality."75
This model of course does not exhaustively explain the process of the
scholarly formation of theories 76though it certainly illustrates the "pro-
ductive meaning of negative experience" of life. 77 It can, however, shed
more light on the specific function of literature within social life. For
the reader has one advantage over the (hypothetical) non-reader, that
he-to adhere to Popper's metaphor- does not have to run into a new
obstacle to gain new experience of reality. The experience of reading
can free him from adaptations, prejudice, and predicaments in his life
by forcing him to a new perception of things. The horizon of expecta-
tions of literature is differentiated from the horizon of expectations of
historical life by the fact that it not only preserves real experiences but
also anticipates unrealized possibilities, widens the limited range of social
behavior by new wishes, demands, and goals, and thereby opens avenues
for future experience.
The orientation of our experience by the creative capability of litera-
ture rests not only on its artistic character, which by virtue of a new form
helps us surmount the mechanical process of everyday perception. The
new form of art is not only "perceived against the background of other
works of art and through association with them." Viktor Sklovskij
is right in this famous sentence, the heart of the formalist credo, insofar
as he turns away from the prejudice of classical aesthetics that defines
beauty as harmony of form and content and accordingly reduces the
75 Ibid., p. Io2.
76 Popper's example of the blind man does not distinguish between the two possi-
bilities of a simple reaction and experimental action assuming certain hypotheses.
If the second possibility is characteristic of the reflective scholarly attitude in dis-
tinction to the unreflective attitude in life, the scholar would be "creative"on his
part, that is he could be placed higher than the "blind man" and could better be
compared with the poet as a creator of new expectations.
77 Buck, Lernen und Erfahrung, pp. 70 ff. "[Negative experience] teaches not
solely by leading us to revise the context of our subsequent experience so that the
new fits into the corrected unity of an objective interpretation . . . . Not only
is the object of the experience represented differently, but the experiencing con-
sciousness changes. The action of a negative experience is one of becoming con-
scious of oneself. Whatever one becomes conscious of are the motifs which have been
guiding experience and which have remained unquestioned in this guiding func-
tion. Negative experience has primarily the character of self-experience, which frees
one for a qualitatively new kind of experience." From these premises G. Buck de-
veloped the concept of hermeneutics, which as a "principle of practical life that is
guided by the highest interest in practical living; the actors' understanding of each
other" legitimizes the specific experience of the so-called humanities in contrast
to the scientific empire. See "Bildung durch Wissenchaft," in Wissenschaft, Bildung
und plidagogische Wirklichkeit (Heidenheim, I969), p. 24.
new form to the secondary function shaping a given content. But the
new form appears not only "in order to replace the old form, which
is no longer artistic," it can also make possible a new perception of
things by forming the content of an experience which first appears in
the form of literature. The relationship of literature and reader can be
realized in the sensuous realm as stimulus to aesthetic perception as
well as in the ethical realm as a stimulation to moral reflection.78
The new literary work is received and judged against the background of
other art forms as well as the background of everyday experience of life.
From the point of view of the aesthetics of reception its social function
in the ethical realm is equally to be understood in the modality of ques-
tion and answer, problem and solution, through which it enters the
horizon of its historical effect.
How a new aesthetic form can simultaneously have moral consequen-
ces, how it can give a moral question the greatest conceivable social
impact, is impressively demonstrated by the trial of Flaubert after the
pre-publication of Madame Bovary in the Revue de Paris in 1857. The
new literary form which forced Flaubert's readers to an unfamiliar per-
ception of the "worn-out fable" was the principle of the impersonal
(or uninvolved) narration in conjunction with the so-called "erlebte
Rede," a stylistic device which Flaubert handled like a virtuoso and
with a consistent perspective. What is meant by this can be seen in a de-
scription which the prosecuting attorney Pinard claimed in his indict-
ment was immoral in the highest degree. In the novel it follows Emma's
first "misstep" and tells how she looked at herself in a mirror:
En s'apergevant dans la glace, elle s'6tonna de son visage. Jamais elle
n'avait eu les yeux si grands, si noirs, ni d'une telle profondeur. Quelque
chose de subtil 6pandu sur sa personne la transfigurait.
Elle se repitait: J'ai un amant! un amant! se d6lectant a cette idee comme
a celle d'une autre pubert6 qui lui serait survenue. Elle allait donc enfin
posse'derces plaisirs de l'amour, cette fidvre de bonheur dont elle avait
de'sespird. Elle entrait dans quelque chose de merveilleux, ou"tout serait
passion, extase, ddlire ...
The prosecuting attorney regarded the last sentences as an objective
description which included the judgment of the narrator and was upset
over this "glorification of adultery" which he considered to be even
78 J. Striedter has pointed out that in the diaries and examples from the prose
of Leo Tolstoy, to which Sklovskij referred in his first explanation of the process
of "Verfremdung," the purely aesthetic aspect was still connected with a theory of
knowledge and an ethical aspect: "however, Sklovskij was interested-in contrast to
Tolstoy-primarily in the artistic 'process' and not in the question of its ethi-
cal prerequisites and effects." (Poetik und Hermeneutik, II [see note 6o], pp. 288
ff.)
more dangerous and immoral than the misstep itself.79 In this Flau-
bert's accuser fell victim to an error as the defense immediately pointed
out. The incriminating sentences are not an objective determination of
the narrator, which the reader can believe, but a subjective opinion
of a person characterized by her feelings that are formed from novels.
The scientific device consists in revealing the inner thoughts of this per-
son without the signals of direct statement (Je vais done enfin posseder
...) or indirectstatement (Elle se disait qu'elle allait done enfin possd-
der .. .). The effect is that the reader must decide for himself whether
he should accept this sentence as a true statement or as an opinion char-
acteristic of this person. Indeed, Emma Bovary is actually "condemned
merely by the explicit description of her existence and by her own feel-
ings." 80 This modern analysis of style agrees exactly with the refutation
of the defense attorney Senard, who stressed that disillusion begins for
Emma as early as the second day: "The denouement for morality is to
be found in every line of the book." 81 (Senard himself could not, how-
ever, name this artistic device which had not yet been recorded at this
time.) The consternating effect of the formal innovation in Flaubert's
narrative style was obvious in the trial: the impersonal narrative form
forces his readers not only to perceive things differently-"photographi-
cally exact" according to the judgment of the time-but it also forced
them into an alienating insecurity about their judgment. Since the new
stylistic device broke with an old novelistic convention-unequivocal de-
scription and well-founded moral judgment about the characters-
Madame Bovary could radicalize or raise questions of life, which dur-
ing the trial caused the original motive for the accusation, alleged las-
civiousness, to recede into the background. The defense attorney began
his counter-attack by turning the charge that the novel does not present
anything but the Histoire des adultdresd'une femme de province into
the question of whether the subtitle of Madame Bovary should not prop-
erly read Histoire de l'education trop souvent donne'een province.82
But the question with which the Requisitoire of the prosecuting attorney
reaches its high point has not yet been answered:
Qui peut condamner cette femme dans le livre? Personne. Telle est la
conclusion. Il n'y a pas dans le livre un personnage qui puisse la condam-
79 Flaubert, Oeuvres, I, 657: "thus, as early as this first mistake, as early as this
first fall, she glorified adultery, its poetry, its voluptuousness. VoilA gentlemen,
what for me is much more dangerous, much more immoral than the fall itself!"
8o E. Auerbach, Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendliindischen Lit-
eratur (Bern, 1946), p. 430.
81 Flaubert, Oeuvres, I, 673.
82 Ibid., p. 670o.
36 NEW LITERARY
HISTORY
ner. Si vous y trouvez un personnage sage, si vous y trouvez un seul prin-
cipe en vertu duquel l'adultere soit stigmatis6,j'ai tort.83
If no character presented in the novel could condemn Emma Bovary
and if no moral principle is asserted in whose name she could be con-
demned, is not general "public opinion" and its basis in "religious feel-
ing" questioned along with the principle of "marital fidelity"? To
what authority should the case of Madame Bovary be presented if the
previously valid standards of society, "opinion publique, sentiment
religieux, morale publique, bonnes moeurs," are no longer sufficient
for judging this case?84 These open and implicit questions do not by
any means indicate an aesthetic lack of understanding or moral philis-
tinism on the part of the prosecuting attorney. Rather, there is ex-
pressed in them the unsuspected influence of a new art form which can
by means of a new manidre de voir les choses jolt the reader of Madame
Bovary out of the belief that his moral judgment is self-evident and re-
open the long-closed question of public morals. Inasmuch as Flaubert,
thanks to his impersonal style, did not provide an opportunity for the
banning of his novel on grounds of immorality, the court acted consis-
tently when it acquitted Flaubert as author but damned the literary
school which they supposed him to represent, but which in reality was
his stylistic device, as yet not recognized:
Attendu qu'il n'est pas permis, sous pr6texte de peinture de caractere ou
de couleur locale, de reproduiredans leurs 6carts les faits, dits et gestes des
personnages qu'un 6crivain s'est donn6e mission de peindre; qu'un pareil
systeme, appliqu6 aux oeuvres de l'esprit aussi bien qu'aux productions des
beaux-arts, conduit a un re'alismequi serait la ne'gationdu beau et du bon
et qui, enfantant des oeuvres 6galement offensantes pour les regards et
pour l'esprit, commettrait de continuels outrages 'a la morale publique et
aux bonnes moeurs.85
Thus a literary work with an unusual aesthetic form can shatter the
expectations of its reader and at the same time confront him with a
question which cannot be answered by religiously or publicly sanctioned
morals. Instead of further examples, a word of reminder is in order
here: it was not Bertolt Brecht but the Enlightenment which first pro-
claimed the competitive relationship between literature and canonized
morals. Friedrich Schiller bears witness to this when he makes this ex-
press claim in regard to bourgeois drama: "the rules of the stage begin
83 Ibid., p. 666.
84 Cf. ibid., pp. 666-67.
85 Ibid., p. 7I7.
where the realm of worldly laws ends." " The literary work can also--
and in the history of literature this possibility characterizes the most re-
cent period of modernity-reverse the relationship of question and
answer and in an artistic medium confront the reader with a new
"opaque" reality which can no longer be understood from the previous
horizon of expectations. Thus the newest form of the novel, the much
discussed nouveau roman, is a form of modern art which-according
to Edgar Wind's formulation-presents the paradoxical case "that the
solution is provided, the problem, however, is given up in order that
the solution can be understood as the solution."87 Here the reader is
excluded from the position of the immediate audience and placed in the
position of an uninitiated third person, who in the face of a still mean-
ingless reality must himself find the question which will enable him to
discover the perception of the world and the interpersonal problem to
which the work's answer is directed.
It follows from all of this that the specific achievement of literature
in society can be found only when the function of literature is not un-
derstood as one of imitation. If one looks at the moments in history
when literary works toppled the taboos of the prevailing morality or of-
fered the reader new solutions for the moral casuistry of his life which
later would be sanctioned by the consensus of all readers in a society, a
little-studied area of research opens for the literary historian. The chasm
between literature and history, between aesthetic and historical knowl-
edge, can be bridged if literary history does not simply once again de-
scribe literary works as a reflection of the process of general history,
but rather discovers in the course of "literary evolution" that truly
socially formative function which belongs to literature as it competes
with other arts and social forces in the emancipation of man from his
natural, religious, and social ties.
If the literary critic is willing to overcome his lack of historical sense
for the sake of this task, then it can provide an answer to the questions,
why and to what ends one can still-or again--study literary history.
KONSTANZ
UNIVERSITAT
(Translated by Elizabeth Benzinger)
86 Die Schaubiihne als eine moralische Anstalt betrachtet, Sikular-Ausgabe,

XI, 99. See also R. Koselleck, Kritik und Krise (Freiburg and Munich, 1959), PP-
82 ff.
87 "Zur Systematik der kiinstlerischen Probleme," 7ahrbuch fiir Asthetik
(1925), 440; for the application of this principle to works of the art of the present
see M. Imdahl, Poetik und Hermeneutik, III (see note I8), pp. 493-505, 663-64.

Literary History As A Challenge To Literary Change (Hans Jauss)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literary History As A Challenge To Literary Change (Hans Jauss)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literary History As A Challenge To Literary Change (Hans Jauss)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How does the author define the role of the reader in literary theory and history?

How does the author define the role of the reader in literary theory and history?

What is the author's view on how literature can challenge prevailing morals?

What is the author's view on how literature can challenge prevailing morals?

Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory

Author(s): Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

rrITERARYhistory may be seen as challenging literary theory to

torians. Neither approach recognizes the true role of the reader to

3 W. Benjamin ( 193I) formulated a corresponding idea: "For it is not a question

positivistic view of history as the "objective" description of a series of

process of continuous horizon setting and horizon changing also deter-

13 See also my treatment of this in "Litte'rature mddie'vale et thdorie des genres,"

information is broken and the darkness which has become expressive

I6 According to the interpretation of K. H. Stierle, Dunkelheit und Form in

demandsare made upon the receivingconsciousnessto make a change

new horizon of expectations has achieved more general acceptance,

23 See H. Weinrich, "FUir eine Literaturgeschichte des Lesers," Merkur, XXI

31 A. Vinaver, "A la recherche d'une po6tique m6di6vale," Cahiers de civilisa-

to what Rene Wellek described as the problem of literary judgment:

result of what I called the second horizon change: the unquestioning

50 Wahrheit undMethode, p. 275.

52 In the 1927 article, "Tber literarische Evolution," by Jurii Tynjanov (Die

tentionally taken up the past, or that a new phase of literary evaluation

ture of one historical moment. A new literary history could be de-

61 In Zeugnisse-Theodor W. Adorno zum 60. Geburtstag (Frankfort, 1963),

that universal history is philosophically untenable today. However, it

67 J. Tynjanov and R. Jacobson, "Probleme der Literatur und Sprachforschung"

temrn and by further cross-section analyses. In principle a presentation

69 C. LUvi-Strauss himself testifies to this involuntarily but extremely impressively

of an age-old social nature and literature to its mythic or symbolic ex-

70 Now in Gesellschaft-Literatur--Wissenchaft: Gesammelte Schriften 1938-

(Translated by Elizabeth Benzinger)

86 Die Schaubiihne als eine moralische Anstalt betrachtet, Sikular-Ausgabe,

You might also like