Özet:

In the first half of the twentieth century, the demand for the acquisition of autonomous and fictional existence in the New Criticism, in terms of its interpretation, is historically radically broken. In the second half of the same century, the New Historicism, referred to by the concepts of "historicity of the text, the textuality of the history" and the "historicity of the text" which attracted the "historicity of the text" and the "historicity of the text" which attracted the "historicity of the text" and the "historicity of the text" which attracted the "historicity of the text" and the "historicity of the text" which attracted the "historicity of the text" and the "historicity of the text" which attracted the "historicity of the text" and the "historicity of the text" which attracted the "historicity of the text" and the "historicity of the text". But in both approaches, it is important to understand the historicity of literary texts, to form the historicity of the reader or text. In this article, it will be claimed that this emerging situation has lacked the dual-directional historicity of understanding literary texts from the opposite ends. On the other hand, the text will focus on the fundamental questions on the historical literature theory, the New Criticism, the Acceptance Aesthetics and the tension of the literature's relationship with history in the New Historicism. In this article, it will also be claimed that the reading of the literary text is historical in its dimensions, such as the reader’s discovery in history, the timelessness of the experience, the incompleteness of the human and literary text. Without prejudice to the fictional existence and autonomy of the literary text, a meaningful relationship with the historical can only be achieved through the historicity of the reading.

Özet:

The demand of the literary work to gain autonomous and fictional exist-ence within the New Criticism in the first half of the twentieth century, rad-ically breaks with the historicity in its interpretation. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Reception Aesthetics with the concept of ''histo-ricity of reader'' and New Historicism with the concept of ''historicity of text'' and ''textuality of history'' stand at a meaningful point among efforts to return to historical consciousness that disappeared after the New Criti-cism. However, in both approaches, it is seen that the historicity of under-standing literary texts predominantly shape through the only historicity of reader or only historicity of text. In this paper, it will be argued that this situation impoverishes the two-way historicity of understanding literary texts at two opposite ends. This paper also will mainly focus on the fundamental problems in the context of the tension relationship of literature with history in historicist literary theory, New Criticism, Reception Aesthetics and New Historicism. It will also be stated that reading the literary text is basically historical with its different dimensions such as the reader finds himself/herself thrown into history, the temporal of experience, the incompleteness of human existence and literary text. The ability to establish a meaningful relationship with history and historical without damaging the fictional existence and autonomy of literary text can be realized through the historicity of reading.

Anahtar Kelimeler: