Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wilson - 1981 - Readers in Text
Wilson - 1981 - Readers in Text
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/462128?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to PMLA
Readers in Texts
"negative models" or foils for the intended read- tempts to distinguish between them, between,
er's response.5 Wolff is not alone in this mis-respectively, "the image of the reader in the au-
conception; many German-language criticsthor's mind" ("das Bild des Lesers, das dem
adopt it, and one of the few English-languageAutor vorschwebte") and "the activity of con-
contributors to the discussion, Lowry Nelson,stituting [meaning] which is prescribed to the
Jr., writes that "of the many ways in which the recipients of texts" ("die den Empfangern der
reader is granted his fictive role, perhaps theTexte vorgezeichnete Konstitutionsaktivitat") .
most elementary is the direct address to him" If the author's "image of the reader" "condi-
and that another is "direct mention of him tions" his or her work, then it necessarily forms
within the fictional body of the work."6 a role in the text that shows readers how to
Wolff's misunderstanding provides a basis for understand that text (or to "constitute its mean-
a look at the work of Wolfgang Iser, one of the ing"). Or, to approach this issue differently, who
foremost critics in the field of reader-oriented but the author can prescribe anything to the
theory. In his book The Act of Reading (1976; reader? Iser would probably argue that the text
trans. 1978), and not in his earlier The Implied itself does so, and in this sense Hannelore Link
Reader (1972; trans. 1974), Iser most clearly notes that the intended reader is identical to the
defines what he means by the "implied reader," implied reader only when authors succeed in
partly by discussing related concepts like formulating their "messages" according to their
Wolff's.7 Referring to Wolff's first method of de- intentions, that is, in writing for the reader they
termining the intended reader, Iser concludes intended to write for. But Link also points out
that what Wolff really means by the "intended that in most works that we consider "literary,"
reader" is the reader characterized in the text the author realizes this intention (p. 28).
(Leserfiktion).8 But Iser accepts this faulty The deeper problem underlying this issue has
identification of the two concepts, not realizing its roots in Iser's theoretical basis for his concept
that the characterized reader cannot categori- of the implied reader. For Iser, the author as the
cally be identified with the reader who is "in- determiner of the work's meaning shrinks almost
tended" by the author and who "conditions" the to the point of extinction. Instead, the reader
work. Iser's confusion can be seen in the follow- creates the work's meaning. Iser believes that
ing passage, where he contradicts himself: the implied reader consists of both an objec-
tively determinable structure in the text
The intended reader, then, marks certain positions (Textstruktur) and the varying subjective actu-
and attitudes in the text, but these are not yet iden- alizations of the structure by real readers
tical to the reader's role, for many of these positions (Aktstruktur); indeterminacies in the text and in
are conceived ironically, ... so that the reader is its implied reader structure make varying actu-
not expected to accept the attitude offered him, but
alizations possible. Critics such as Link are
rather to react to it. (Act, p. 33; Akt, p. 59) baffled by Iser's statements like "the intention of
a text" lies "in the reader's imagination."'0
How can these attitudes be "intended" for the
Such statements are less mystifying (and more
reader who is "not expected to" identify with difficult to counter) when one considers Iser's
them? By failing to scrutinize Wolff's application phenomenological roots, which reach back
of the term "intended" to the characterized
through the Polish philosopher Roman Ingarden
reader, Iser skirts the question of whether his to Edmund Husserl, Ingarden's teacher. "Inten-
own implied reader or reader's role is equivalent tion" should apparently be understood in the
to the properly understood intended reader. In- phenomenological sense of "intentionality." The
deed, if we take only Wolff's initial definition of reader-the noetic pole-"intends" or consti-
the intended reader as "the idea of the reader tutes the meaning of the work, the noematic
that forms in the author's mind" and that "con-
pole. Whether one views the experience of a lit-
ditions" the work and reject his and Iser's false erary work communicatively (as Link) or
identification of this reader with the character-
phenomenologically or whether one tries to syn-
ized reader, the difference between intended and
thesize these outlooks (as Iser attempts to do-
implied readers virtually disappears. Iser at- unsuccessfully, to my mind) is a matter of
enon of flexibility, as Iser refers to it, is itself a talking about, and this reader is therefore "cast
particular reader's role. When we speak ab- in the role of a close companion of the writer"
stractly of the implied reader as a general con-(p. 13). But must "the audience ... correspond-
cept, we cannot equip him or her with individual ingly fictionalize itself" to conform to readers
characteristics, such as flexibility. We must in-within texts, as Ong asserts? We can certainly
vestigate each work without preconceived no-imagine a parody of Hemingway that begins
tions; generalities about the reader's role in any
with a sentence very similar to Hemingway's
body of works (even those of one author) willown, perhaps with a few signals of irony to indi-
usually stumble on the insistent uniqueness of cate that the buddy relation is being ridiculed. In
this hypothetical case, a reader would still be
the individual fictive world. Finally, Iser's prac-
tical reliance on authorial intention (which fictionalized,
is but the real reader would not be
inconsistent with his basic theory) also destroysexpected to take on this (characterized reader's)
flexibility; the reader who must uncover the au- fictional role. Rather, an opposite role, still fic-
thor's intention or meaning is not really allowedtional, would be present, one distinguished by an
much leeway. ironic aloofness toward the camaraderie between
The example of Walter Ong's article shows narrator and reader that Hemingway intends
that English-language critics, by implication, seriously. The word "narrator" must be stressed
have something to teach German critics: all here. Aleksandra Okopieni-Slawiniska would
readers within the text can be called fictive. Of seem to describe Ong's example from Heming-
course, Ong's article can only be fit into the de- way when she writes: "The narrator can draw a
veloping discussion ex post facto, since he and very distinct picture of his conversational part-
most other English-language critics were not ner without mentioning him at all."26 But
overtly concerned with the characterized reader; Okopieni-Stawifiska emphasizes that the narra-
so they, in turn, can learn from the German tra- tor, rather than the author, is the communicative
dition. Walker Gibson, in an early article,partner of this characterized reader. Only when
writes: "A bad book . . . is a book in whose
the narrator approximates the (implied) author
mock reader we discover a person we refuse to the implied reader (the implied author's
does
become, a mask we refuse to put on, a role communicative
we partner) correspond to the char-
will not play."25 Leaving aside the dubious acterized reader.
equation of literary quality with our willingness
So the examples Ong gives are in the first
to play the implied reader's role, we can see that
place characterized readers who are only coin-
Gibson overlooks the category of the character-
cidentally implied readers. The distinction may
ized reader entirely (and that his "mock reader"
seem sophistic or insignificant in the Hemingway
therefore corresponds to the implied reader). text, where the two roles coincide, but we should
The author may create a reader's role with certainly not be led to believe that all readers
which we are not expected to identify, as we saw
characterized in the text are intended to regulate
in Joseph Andrews. Ong, too, misses this dis-
our response. In Ong's own analysis, other ex-
tinction. A close look at some of his examples
amples show more clearly the pitfalls of this
will enable us to define more clearly the fine
confusion. Ong speaks of the frame technique
points of distinction between characterized and
(e.g., in The Canterbury Tales or The De-
implied fictive readers. cameron) as one in which readers can be shown
One of Ong's central examples is the opening
quite clearly how to fictionalize themselves: they
passage of Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms: must simply emulate the reading (listening)
"In the late summer of that year we lived behavior
in a depicted in the fictional listeners. This
house in a village that looked across the river
correspondence is certainly probable for the
and the plain to the mountains." Ong percep- early historical development of the genre to
tively points out that the use of the definitewhich
ar- Ong refers, but his claim that the frame
ticle and demonstratives ("that year," "the river,"
"is really a rather clumsy gambit" for showing
etc.) in the first sentence of this work estab- readers their roles (p. 16) ignores those charac-
lishes a fictionalized reader who apparentlyterized readers who are straw men (and women)
knows which year, which river the narrator is whose faulty responses we are not meant to
ers who are not referred to directly in the text For these reasons, I have chosen the terms
but who may be inferred from it. Although this "characterized fictive reader" and "implied" or
last category may seem to mark the intended"intended fictive reader." By the former term I
reader, it does not do so in principle. For ex- understand any reader characterized within the
text who exists only there. The characterization
ample, Prince includes in this category a charac-
terized reader in a novel by Camara Laye inmay be achieved directly, when the narrator ad-
which the narrator mentions Guinean pots called dresses or refers to this reader or when the
are supposed to adopt the implied reader's atti- The implied reader thus ideally contributes to
tudes-is a matter of interpretation (and is, I criticism that is no more, but also no less, objec-
believe, doubtful). So in this example, the mat- tive or valid than interpretation generally. Fur-
ter can be resolved by distinguishing between the ther, the implied reader is a function of no more
characterized reader and the implied reader and, and no less than the overall meaning (that is, the
even more important, by avoiding an otherwise overall interpretation) of the text. I say "no
unjustified identification of implied and real con- more" because the implied reader is in principle
temporary readers (just as we avoid unjustifiably not identical to real readers outside the text and
identifying the fictive "editor" with the implied must not be interpreted with undue emphasis on
author or Goethe). An examination of the au- real readers and other extratextual criteria. An-
thor's relation to contemporary readers may be other example of such criteria is an author's
valuable in determining how this relation af- opinions about his or her work expressed else-
fected the creation of the implied reader (as we where than in the work; I mentioned above the
shall see), but this relation must not be confused "intentional fallacy" of taking such statements
with the relation between the author and that as authoritative (Wimsatt and Beardsley). A
same implied reader; the only "communicative further example, reference to other works of the
partner" present during the genesis of a work is same author, shows where studies of "the reader
the implied reader, who (as Ong points out) is in the works of so-and-so" often fall short: they
never identical to the unmodified real reader. generalize about the implied reader in several
The second way in which our responses car works, ignoring the unique communicative pat-
be inappropriately prescribed in criticism of the tern, and thus the unique implied reader, in each
implied reader is described by Crosman as "the work. That pattern is part and parcel of the
cipients . . . influence the form of the poetic real reader, the concept of the implied reader
work and determine its structure" are really can potentially mediate between the two ex-
"complementary questions"; in this respect, the tremes of criticism that deify these respective
possible "concretizations of a work" are poles. As we saw, the study of fictive readers is
"equally a matter of poetics and literary sociol- also a logical outgrowth of investigations into
ogy" (pp. 97, 103). the "rhetoric of fiction." These critical tools thus
The relation of the implied reader to the other enjoy a certain ideological neutrality-save the
definition of a new paradigm, David Bleich's postulate of communication-oriented analysis-
more radical "subjective criticism,"47 is more that should render them useful to scholars on
elusive. Bleich feels that literary critics, like their more than just one continent.50
colleagues in other disciplines, must relinquish
the illusion of objectivity and admit that textual
meaning is a matter of "negotiation" of individ- McGill University
ual reading experiences. If one believes, as Iser Montreal, Quebec
Notes
1 Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: Univ. ofModelle zur Rezeption literarischer Werke, ed. Grimm
Chicago Press, 1961), p. 71. (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1975), pp. 11-84, esp. p. 75, and
2 Link, Rezeptionsforschung: Eine Einfiihrung in by Horst Flaschka, "Rezeptionsasthetik im Litera-
Methoden und Probleme (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, turunterricht: Eine Einfiihrung in Schwerpunkte der
1976); on p. 2, Link speaks both of the "Auswahl, dieTheorie (1. Teil)," Mitteilungen des Deutschen Ger-
der abstrakte Autor [her alternate term for "implizitermanisten-Verbandes, 24 (1977), 35-44, esp. p. 43.
Autor"] getroffen hat" and of the "Auswahl, die der 5 Harries, "Fiction and Artifice: Studies in Fielding,
Autor . . . getroffen hat"; see also p. 28. Link's ties toWieland, Sterne, Diderot," Diss. Yale 1973 (DAI, 34
Booth are Rolf Fieguth (see n. 26) and Wolf Schmid,[1973], 7191A), esp. pp. 136-46. Except for the ter-
Der Textaufbau in den Erzihlungen Dostoevskijs minology (see p. 856 of my essay), this study contains
(Munich: Fink, 1973). one of the clearest and most insightful analyses of
3 Wolff, "Der intendierte Leser: Oberlegungen und fictive readers.
Beispiele zur Einfuhrung eines literaturwissenschaft- 6 Nelson, "The Fictive Reader and Literary Self-Re-
lichen Begriffs," Poetica, 4 (1971), 141-66; transla- flectiveness," in The Disciplines of Criticism, ed. Peter
tions in the text are mine. Demetz et al. (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1968),
4 Wolff, p. 160. Wolff's criteria are adopted uncriti- pp. 173-91, esp. p. 175. At times it even seems that
cally by Gunter Grimm, "Einfiihrung in die Rezep- Nelson's fictive reader is the real reader: "The problem
tionsforschung," in Literatur und Leser: Theorien und of the fictive reader [of Wordsworth's 'The Thorn'],
thus giving the impression that he believed that the reader (outside the text) is not explicit in the same way
reader does perfectly fill this role. the "implicit" reader (inside the text) is implicit. The
22 The Implied Reader, p. 38; Der implizite Leser, actualization
p. of the reader's role does not make the
68. In The Act of Reading, Iser submits the same pas-"implicit" reader "explicit."
sage to a more extended analysis (pp. 142-46), but at32 Michelsen, Laurence Sterne und der deutsche
the basis of this variation lies the same confusion of Roman des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts (Gottingen: Van-
characterized and implied readers. denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962), pp. 15-16 and n. 9.
23 Iser further confuses matters by drawing a When con- Michelsen says that the "vorgestellter Leser"
clusion directly from the sociologically differentiated can be determined "direkt aus den Apostrophen des
characterizations of readers in this passage to Fielding'sErzahlers," he clearly refers to a characterized reader.
concern "with catering for a varied public" (Implied 33 Kamerbeek points out the various connotations of
Reader, p. 38); in other words, he identifies the fictive the term: "dans le mot 'ideal' le seme de 'perfection
characterizations with real readers-the "varied public" concrete' ou bien celui d' 'idealite abstraite' est actualise"
-and these, in turn, with the reader implied in or in- ("Le Concept du 'Lecteur Ideal,'" Neophilologus, 61
tended for the work-the audience Fielding is "catering [1977], 2-7, esp. p. 5; Kamerbeek traces the use of this
to." This added confusion is not surprising, since Iser term back to A. W. Schlegel). Aleksandra Okopiein-
explicitly argues that the "imaginary" (fingiert) Stawinska uses the term "ideal" to refer to a real re-
"author-reader dialogue" gives the reader "guidelines cipient
as (pp. 143, 145).
to how he is to view the proceedings," and is thus 34 "Autor-Adressat-Leser," Weimarer Beitrdge, 17,
"explicit guidance of the reader" (Implied Reader, pp. No. 11 (1971), 163-69. The term is also used by
46-47; Der implizite Leser, p. 81). structuralists like Okopieni-Stawiniska.
24 Maurer, p. 480; he refers to previous articles by 35 E.g., Gerard Genette, Figures, iII (Paris: Seuil,
Karlheinz Stierle and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. 1972), 265-66.
25 Gibson, "Authors, Speakers, Readers, and Mock 36Crosman, "Some Doubts about 'The Reader of
Readers," College English, 11 (1949-50), 265-69, Paradise Lost,'" College English, 37 (1975), 372-82.
esp. p. 268. See also Harries, pp. 137-38. 37 Jauss, "Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der
26 "Die personalen Relationen in der literarischen Literaturwissenschaft," in Jauss, Literaturgeschichte als
Kommunikation" (1969); rpt. in Literarische Kom- Provokation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1970), translated
munikation, ed. Rolf Fieguth (Kronberg: Scriptor, in part as "Literary History as a Challenge to Literary
1975), pp. 127-47, esp. p. 142. Rolf Fieguth would Theory," New Literary History, 2 (1970), 7-37.
probably agree; in his analysis of a passage that does not 38 Cf. H. P. H. Teesing: "Das Absolute wird zwar
mention a reader at all, he posits an implied "dialogue"nicht erkannt, aber anerkannt"; "Die adaquate Inter-
between a characterized reader and a narrator, a dia- pretation gibt es . . . idealiter, nicht realiter" ("Der
logue that is remarkably similar to that constructed by Standort des Interpreten," Orbis Litterarum, 19 [1964],
Ong on the basis of the Hemingway text (p. 13), but31-46, esp. pp. 42, 45; quoted by van Ingen, p. 93).
from which the implied reader must distance himself 39 Crosman seems at times to reject the idea of inten-
or herself ("Zur Rezeptionslenkung bei narrativen undtion altogether and at other times to embrace it. But
dramatischen Werken," Sprache im technischen Zeital-he is mistaken to identify the concept of the "ideal
ter, 47 [1973], 186-201, esp. pp. 188-89). reader" with "an attempt, ... in the wake of its demoli-
27 Prince, "Notes toward a Categorization of Fictionaltion at the hands of Wimsatt and Beardsley, to smuggle
'Narratees,'" Genre, 4 (1971), 100-06, esp. p. 100. On 'authorial intention' back into critical discussion" (p.
"narratees" (characterized readers) see p. 856 of my 373), at least where the ideal reader is based on textual
essay. evidence. Wimsatt and Beardsley did not argue that
28 Prince, "Introduction a l'etude du narrataire," intention cannot be determined by reference to the
Poetique, 14 (1973), 178-96, esp. p. 191. text; they argued only that authorial intentions ex-
29 In his review of Der Akt des Lesens, H. U. Gum- pressed outside the text do not necessarily describe the
brecht criticizes, unreasonably to my mind, Iser's structures of the work. They accepted internal but not
synonymous use of the terms "impliziter Leser" 'im- external manifestations of intention.
plied reader' and "Leserrolle" 'reader's role' (Poetica, 40 See Sherbo; Iser (The Implied Reader, Ch. ii);
9 [1977], 522-34, esp. p. 524). and John Preston, The Created Self: The Reader's Role
30 Sherbo, "'Inside' and 'Outside' Readers in Field- in Eighteenth-Century Fiction (London: Heinemann,
ing's Novels," in his Studies in the Eighteenth Century1970).
Novel (n.p.: Michigan State Univ. Press, 1969), pp. 41 "De la diction des verses," (Euvres, ed. Jean Hy-
35-57, esp. p. 39. tier, in (Paris: Gallimard, 1960), 1255-56; quoted by
31 Hans Robert Jauss has more recently further com- Kamerbeek, "Drei Hypostasen," p. 204.
plicated "die gegenwartig ausufernde Typologie von 42 Jauss, "Paradigmawechsel in der Literaturwissen-
Leserrollen" by calling the real reader "der explizite schaft," Linguistische Berichte, No. 3 (1969), pp. 44-
Leser" ("Der Leser als Instanz einer neuen Geschichte 56; rpt. in Methoden der deutschen Literaturwissen-
der Literatur," Poetica, 7 [1975], 325-44, esp. p. 339). schaft, ed. Viktor Zmega6 (Frankfurt: Athenaum,
It goes almost without saying that this sort of "explicit" 1972), pp. 274-90.
43 Jauss, "Der Leser als Instanz einer neuen Ge- Konzepts in Theorie und Praxis," Amsterdamer Beitrage
schichte der Literatur," Poetica, 7 (1975), 325-44, esp. zur neueren Germanistik, 3 (1974), 1-36.
pp. 339-40. Jauss takes the same position in his preface 47 See Bleich, Subjective Criticism (Baltimore: Johns
to Asthetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik,Hopkins Univ. Press, 1978), and "The Subjective
I (Munich: Fink, 1977), 13. Paradigm in Science, Psychology and Criticism," New
44 For example, on page 48 of Rezeptionsgeschichte Literary History, 7 (1976), 313-34.
Grimm gives special status to such intentions ("Die 48 Jauss: "die implizite Leserrolle [ist] an objektiven
Objektivation der fiktionalen Leserrolle laBt sich . . . Strukturen des Textes ablesbar" 'the implicit role of the
nur mit Kenntnis der entstehungsgeschichtlichen reader can be determined from objective structures of
Sachverhalte, einschlieBlich der extratextuellen Autorin-the text' ("Der Leser als Instanz," p. 339). It seems as
tention . .. approximativ erreichen" 'The objectivizationif Jauss is here inadvertently reintroducing "objective
of the fictional role of the reader can be approximately meaning" of texts after having rejected it (e.g., in "An
attained . . . only with knowledge of the facts sur- Interview with Hans Robert Jauss," New Literary
rounding the genesis of the work, including extratextual History, 11 [1979], 83-95, esp. p. 84).
authorial intention'-italics mine), and on page 51 he 49 In spite of his expressed skepticism regarding ob-
(correctly) withdraws this status ("Diese textextern jectivity (Rezeptionsgeschichte, p. 54), Grimm's entire
explizit gemachten Intentionen sollten . . . mit eben system is based on a deep-seated faith in the determin-
der Vorsicht behandelt werden, die der Interpretation ability of a correct understanding of the text ("die
jedes Nichtautors entgegengebracht wird" 'These in- tjberpriifbarkeit eines adaquaten Verstehens" [p. 57]).
tentions made explicit outside the text should be . . . To turn to "history" as a philosopher's stone that
treated with the same caution as an interpretation by would render criticism objective ignores the ambiguity
any other person'). of historical evidence (one critic's Entstehungsgeschichte
45 Michat Gtowiniski writes, "ein gewisser Teil der is not necessarily another's!) and the subjectivity of the
poetischen Werke entsteht entweder gegen die For- historian's point of view (to which Grimm gives token
derungen der Empfanger oder aber beriicksichtigt sie recognition-e.g., p. 59). Van Ingen, too, calls histori-
gar nicht und lai3t sich deshalb nur mittelbar als Aus- cal data "objektivierbar" (p. 134). I mean to degrade
druck jener Forderungen analysieren" 'a certain num- not historical criticism-my approach is eminently
ber of poetic works originates either in opposition to historical-but rather a naive model of historiographic
the demands of the recipients or pays no heed to them objectivity.
and can therefore be analyzed only indirectly as an 50 In the year after I submitted this article, largely
expression of those demands' ("Der virtuelle Empfan- new essays appeared in a book whose title indicates
ger in der Struktur des poetischen Werks" [originally how close the authors' concerns are to mine: The
1967], in Literarische Kommunikation, pp. 97-126, esp. Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpre-
p. 98; rpt. in Weimarer Beitrige, 21, No. 6 [1975], tation, ed. Susan Suleiman and Inge Crosman (Prince-
118-43). This may be true for concrete "Forderungen" ton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980). In her discerning
'demands' of the public but not for less obvious aspects"Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criti-
of the writer's relation to society. But van Ingen is cism" (pp. 3-45), Suleiman touches on several issues I
wrong to assume, at the opposite extreme, that there istreat. She speaks of an "inscribed reader" (p. 14),
always a direct, positive relation between contemporarywhich would correspond to the characterized reader, and
audience and the writer: "Der Autor orientiert sich perceptively criticizes Iser (pp. 23-25), although she
an den Regelkonventionen, die er beim Leser als bekannt
ignores much German criticism that preceded her own.
voraussetzt" 'The author is guided by the regulative Essays that I have cited by Gibson, Prince, Iser, and
conventions he presumes to be known to the reader' Fish are now collected (in English), with others, in
(p. 131). The implied reader may represent the au- Reader-Response Criticism:. From Formalism to Post-
thor's rejection of the contemporary public (which Structuralism, ed. Jane P. Tompkins (Baltimore: Johns
means, of course, that they do influence the author). Hopkins Univ. Press, 1980). Both Crosman and Tomp-
46 Link, "'Appellstruktur' und 'Paradigmawechsel'?" kins have assembled annotated bibliographies that are
p. 539 and elsewhere ("Interferenz"). She is followed especially comprehensive for Anglo-American and
by Elrud Kunne-Ibsch, "Rezeptionsforschung: Kon- French criticism.
stanten und Varianten eines literaturwissenschaftlichen