The Reception of Hayden White

Evaluation of the influence of Hayden White on the theory of history ismade difficult by his preference for the essay form, valued for its experimental character, and by the need to find comparable data. A quantitative study of citations of his work in English and foreign‐language journals, 1973–1993, reveals that although historians were prominent among early readers of Metahistory , few historical journals reviewed White'stwo subsequent collections of essays and few historians—except inGermany—cited them. Those historians who did tended still to cite Metahistory and often the parts of it devoted specifically to nineteenth‐century historians. Literary critics, on the other hand, were relatively late to discover White, but during the “narrative turn” of the 1970s and 1980s his work was important for students of the novel and the theater. Recognition of it was especially marked in Spanish‐speaking countries and in Germany. As a result, salient themes of White's later work—the ideological andpolitical import of narrativization, the “historical sublime,” and writing in the “middle voice”—have largely gone unremarked by historians and philosophers. Both these groups have tended to be irritated by White's bracketing of questions of historical epistemology; some have accused him of effacing the line between fiction and history, while White's numerous literary readers have generally applauded his tendencies in thisdirection. White however has consistently maintained that there is a difference, although not the one conventionally postulated. His exploration of writing in the “middle voice” brings his work full circle, in that it promises a “modernist” realism appropriate for representing the “sublime” events of our century.