|
|
|
|
|
|
|
happens in the world at large. Both explanations employ the horizon of expectation. To begin with the second: here we can well see why it is essential that the horizon of expectation have a social component: only if that is granted, is it possible to explain how a literary work can act on the social expectations of its readers and thereby influence their attitudes and even their behaviour. The point is an important one, because it provides Jauss with his main argument in his quarrel with Marxism: whereas Marxists, he contends, describe literature as merely abbildend, he, with his notion of horizon of expectation, is able to describe it as bildend (199207). Here too, Jauss primarily thinks of the horizon of expectation being 'broken through' (durchbrochen), but one can correct this one-sidedness (in accordance with his later views) without compromising his claim: when expectations are confirmed or newly argued for or extended, that too can have an impact on social practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Jauss's model of literary evolution, on the other hand, it is crucial that the horizon of expectation is indeed broken through: only when that happens does a 'change of horizon' (Horizontwandel) occur, which sets the historical process off in a new direction. Subsequent works now have to meet new expectations, with the consequence that they will be different, because authors are also readers and are also affected by the change of horizon. The new horizon will then be broken through in its turn, the works which follow will again be different, etc. In this case Jauss is aware that his model only accounts for innovation as such, but cannot explain in what the innovation consists: why the horizon is broken through in this specific way and not in another. To make up for this deficiency, Jauss supplements his model (perhaps not quite consistently) with 'the historical logic of question and answer' (18992, 198),21 according to which a work leaves its audience with a problem, to which a new work then provides a solution, leaving the audience with yet another problem, etc.; if we recognize what the questions were, we can also understand the solutions. Thus the process of change of horizon takes place through the alternation of question and answer, and as this process continues into our own day, it mediates the past with the present. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The literary history here designed by Jauss has for its avowed aim 'to understand the historical succession of literary works' (169) and tries to achieve that aim by linking the works through their receptions: instead of a sequence work work work, etc., we get a sequence work reception work reception work, etc. This is a definite improvement, but cannot yet account for a further feature of the reception of literary works, |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
21 Jauss refers to various publications by Hans Blumenberg, but takes the expression 'the logic of question and answer' from Hans-Georg Gadamer, who in his turn took it from R.G. Collingwood: see Gadamer (1986) 37584 (35160 in older editions). Elsewhere, Jauss refers directly back to Gadamer; this will be discussed below. |
|
|
|
|
|