The purpose of this research is to present Jagić's literary-historical and theoretical works and reviews that exhaustively shed light on his scientific and professional work related to his methodological contribution to shaping of the genre of the Croatian literary history in the 19th century, as well as the literary science in general. Jagić's scientific and professional work related to literary-historical issues was basically divided into two phases - the Zagreb one, which lasted for ten years, from 1860 to 1871, and the foreign one, which lasted from 1871 to 1917. In the first phase, Jagić had been more focused on literary-historical issues, and he had written much more about this topic than he did in the second phase, when he was more intensively engaged in Slavic philology, which was his primary scientific interest. As observed, an insight into previous research on Jagić's contribution to the development of the genre of the Croatian literary history revealed that it had relied on only few of his works and methodological principles which he had applied to advance the genre. Many works are not mentioned at all in the literature, but they are equally important or even more important than the ones that are often mentioned. With this research, I wanted to point out those works and, of course, highlight the new methodological principles of the genre of the Croatian literary history he promoted, as well as hitherto less researched facts about his works. For example, Jagić's first overview of literature is Literatura horvatská (1864), not a Kratak priegled hrvatsko-srbske književnosti od posljednje dvie-tri godine (1866), as is often pointed out, and his first Croatian literary history is not Historija književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srbskoga (1867) but Literatura Jihoslovanův v užším šťův (i.e. Chorvato-Srbův) (1865), which was published as a dictionary entry, and shows the entire Croatian literary history. The beginnings of Jagić's literary and historical work are linked to the year 1861, when he published the text Pabirci po cvieću našega narodnoga pjesničtva dealing with issues of folk poetry and its role in literature, and thus in the Croatian literary history. The end of Jagić's literary-historical work was set in 1917, when he published the monograph Život i rad Jurja Križanića, in which he presented Križanić's life and his literary and non-literary work, and after which he no longer approached the topic (of genre) of the Croatian literary history. Within that period of 56 years, Jagić published 86 works that in some way problematize the genre of the Croatian literary history. These works were classified as literary-historical, theoretical and critical. It should be noted that works that partially problematize the topic of the genre of the Croatian literary history were also taken into account, because these works also contributed to a clearer shaping of Jagić's methodological framework of the genre. This research does not include works dealing with the interpretation of medieval texts and the beginnings of literacy, because Jagić analyzed the literary works of that time from the point of view of paleography, textology and linguistic analysis, which he wrote about in his work Dějiny české literatury. Written by Jaroslav Vlček. Sešit prvni. V Praze 1893. (History of Czech literature. Written by Jaroslav Vlček. Part one. In Prague 1893.) During the Zagreb phase (1860-1871), Jagić published works in the Croatian language in local magazines and editions such as Književnik, Rada Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Starina and Starih pisaca hrvatskih. Given that almost all the methodological principles of the genre that Jagić established can be read from the works from that phase, they are shown as formative for the development of the genre of the Croatian literary history in the 19th century. The most important works from the first phase that could be taken as such into consideration are the following: Literatura horvatská (1861), Ogledalo književne poviesti jugoslavjanske. Na poučavanje mladeži nacrtao prof. Sime Ljubić. Knjiga I., str. 344 u moj osmini (1865), Kratak priegled hrvatsko-srbske književnosti od posljednje dvie-tri godine (1866), Historija književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srbskoga (1867), Prilozi k historiji književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srbskoga (1868), Živi li, napreduje li naša književnost? (1869.), Plodovi književnosti hrvatsko-srbske od pošljednje dvie godine (1869), Trubaduri i najstariji hrvatski lirici (1869). Jagić's foreign phase (1871-1917) lasted significantly longer than the Zagreb one, and during this period he published works, mostly written in German, in the magazine Archiv für slavische Philologie, which he started himself in 1875 and was its editor until his death in 1923. Only few works from this phase were also found in other magazines such as Slavisches Centralblatt, Kritická příloha k Národnim listům, Otadžbina, Deutsche Rundshau. Although in those years he dealt mainly with linguistic topics and Slavic philology, judging by the works from that second phase, he never completely stopped following current events related to the Croatian literary history. In numerous works of this type, he dealt with issues of other European national literary histories, but these works were also presented and analyzed in the research in order to confirm the methodological principles of the genre that he had shaped as well as the consistency in their application. The following works can be singled out from the second, foreign phase of Jagić's literary and historical work: Der Königssohn Marko in der Volksdichtung. Mit einem Glossar der weniger bekannten Wörter heraugegeben von Ivan Filipović, Agram 1880. (1881), translated as Kraljević Marko in folk songs. Edited by Ivan Filipović with an interpreter of lesser-known words and expressions; Radovan Košutić. Criticism and literature. Belgrade 1893 (1893); Hrvatske narodne pjesme. Skupila i izdala Matica Hrvatska. Odio prvi. Junačke pjesme. Knjiga prva. Zagreb, 1896. (1897); Povjest (!) književnosti hrvatske i srpske. Napisao Dr. Đuro Šurmin. Zagreb 1898. (Kugli i Deutsch) (1899); Hrvatska glagolska književnost (1913). During the research of Jagić's literary and historical works, Jagić's methodological principles of the genre of the Croatian literary history of the 19th century were revealed and defined. First of all, these are the following: the separation of the Croatian literary history from general history, the inclusion of folk literature in the overall Croatian literary history, the relationship between folk and artistic literature, and the presentation of the beginnings of literacy and medieval texts in the development of the Croatian literary history. The principles and presentation of the relationship between society and literature and culture within the framework of the Croatian literary history are important, as well as taking care of the taste and interests of the readership. Until Jagić's contributions to the genre, the content of the work and the analysis of selected literary works had not been presented, thus the evaluation of the aesthetic and artistic quality of literary works began. The number of reviews he wrote confirms his preference for them, and in his many works he emphasized the role of critical texts in the development of literature. Moreover, he elaborated the principles of presenting magazine business and highlighting translated literature within the framework of the Croatian literary history. Jagić's important methodological principles of the genre of the Croatian literary history include the periodization of literary periods in the presentation of the Croatian literary history, the genre division of the literary creativity of the period (and even the subject writer) and the comparative approach to the Croatian literary history. Jagić believed that the Croatian literary history should be based on citing recent literary-historical knowledge of other European and Croatian scholars, but also on the presentation of new literary-historical knowledge. Such methodological pluralism, when shaping the genre of the Croatian literary history, greatly changed the direction of the development of the genre of the Croatian literary history and broke the tradition of the previous (bio)bibliographic model of the genre. Jagić's methodological principles were also applied in other representative histories of Croatian literature of the 19th century, therefore it was precisely those that were analyzed within the framework of this research. Given that Jagić published his first literary-historical works in which he indicated the direction of the genre's development by 1871, that year has been determined as a turning point in this research. Therefore, literary hitories published up to that year were designated as predecessors of Jagić's methodological principles of the genre, and histories that were published after that year were designated as followers of Jagić's methodological principles. The analysis has indicated that the antecedent histories are mainly (bio)bibliographic models of the Croatian literary history that are based on the presentation of writers' biographies and lists of their works. In only few histories from that period, one comes across some methodological principles advocated by Jagić, but the principles of their construction are always insufficiently elaborated. Some of the antecedent histories are the following: Kratki pregled stare literature hervatske by Antun Mažuranić (1855), Pjesnici hrvatski XV. vieka (1856) and Pjesnici hrvatski XVI. vieka (1858.) by Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski and Ogledalo književne poviesti jugoslavjanske na podučavanje mladeži, Knjiga I. Šime Ljubića (1864.). On the other hand, history authors following Jagić's methodological principles mainly applied Jagić's methodological principles - folk literature presentation in the development of Croatian literature, relationship between folk and artistic literature, retelling and analysis of literary works content, selection of literary works of higher artistic quality, comparative approach to history, periodization, the genre structure of the literary works belonging to one writer or period, citing the knowledge of other scientists, etc. The following histories include the Historija dubrovačke drame (1871) by Armin Pavić, Kratka poviest književnosti hrvatske i srbske za gradjanske i više djevojačke škole (1875) by Ivan Filipović, Poviest hrvatske književnosti za kandidate učiteljstva (1883) by Antun Pechan, Povjest (!) književnosti hrvatske i srpske (1898) by Đuro Šurmin. Although that part of this paper was focused on Jagić's methodological influence on the nineteenth-century histories of Croatian literature, with the aim of confirming further inheritance of his methodological principles of the genre, several early twentieth-century histories were also analyzed. Some of these analyzed histories from the beginning of the 20th century are the following: Povjest (!) hrvatske književnosti u Dalmaciji i Dubrovniku (1902) by Milorad Medini, Hrvatski preporod I (1903) and Hrvatski preporod II (1904) by Đuro Šurmin, Pod apsolutizmom, Historija šestoga decenija hrvatske književnosti (1850.-1860.) (1906) by Nikola Andrić. It should also be noted that Branko Vodnik's Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Knjiga I., Od humanizma do potkraj XVIII. stoljeća, S uvodom Vatroslava Jagića o hrvatskoj glagolskoj književnosti is symbolically the last analyzed history from the beginning of the 20th century, because in that history Jagić published his last literary-historical work. The results of the analysis of the Croatian literary history from the beginning of the 20th century showed that Jagić's methodological principles of the genre from the 19th century continued to be applied, but were also further improved. For example, the content of literary works was no longer presented for the sake of the presentation itself, but for the purpose of connecting with the poetics of the time or confirming the theses advocated by historians, so a functional presentation of the works content began. Furthermore, literary historians continued to single out texts of higher artistic quality to be evaluated as such. Moreover, literary biographies were no longer the backbone of the content of the Croatian literary history, but were presented for the purpose of portraying the authors’ overall literary works. In addition to the representation of the work genre, the definition of the genre, its development and origin were analyzed, and they were often connected with the genre structure of the period. Periodization of literature and a comparative approach to the study and analysis of the twentieth-century literature were regularly present, as well as the presentation of literary magazines, reviews and theater activities. It is important to emphasize that these principles were further deepened. For example, magazines were associated with the ruling poetics and writers who mostly published their works there. It is noted that more often the Croatian literary history was a medium for providing information about literary periods, their duration, poetic features, main representatives and works, and less often for discovering new scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the Croatian literary history in the 20th century, inspired by the nineteenth-century principles of the genre, became a space for adresssing important literary issues, determining artistic quality of literary works, presenting literary periods and their characteristics, and commenting on the ideologies of the period and/or writers and social difficulties. Although in his literary historical works Jagić mostly applied the methodological principles of the genre of the Croatian literary history, which he advocated in his theoretical works and criticisms, there were two principles that he was not consistently implementing. For example, in his theoretical works and criticisms he advocated the separation of general history from the literary history, but he deviated from this principle in the Historiji književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srbskoga (1867). Moreover, he advocated and regularly carried out periodization, but in his criticism of the work Istorija srpske književnosti. Pregled ugadjan za školsku potrebu. Napisao Stojan Novaković. 1867 u Beogradu; u 8. str. XII i 326 (1867) his distancing from it was evident , and he himself commented that he was not inclined to systematics. What is also essential to this research is an overview of theoretical and methodological approaches to the genre of history of (Croatian) literature, which emphasize the necessity of the historian's affinities and personal assessments when creating an image of any stylistic era, writer, work or social phenomena. In accordance with them, the affinities and differences of Jagić's principles in relation to his predecessors and followers have been interpreted as well as the historian's overcoming of the framework of positivism and the philological approach to the study of literature, which was often lightly attributed to him. The aforementioned theoretical approaches determined the direction of the methodological apparatus throughout the research and were applied both to Jagić's principles and to the principles of other literary historians. Theoretical findings and hypotheses about the genre of history of (Croatian) literature emphasized its problematic nature and opened up a multitude of questions related to its role, meaning and functionality. Thus, for example, the functionality of periodization, the choice of writers and works, the objectivity in the presentation of history, the attitude towards contemporary literary works, etc. were called into question. These theories also helped shed light on Jagić's developed scientific innovation - the ambiguity of periodization, the key role of the readership in determining the value of a work and literary trends, the relationship between society and literature, the position of culture in the literary history, the role of magazine activity and reviews, etc., in short - a multitude of things that theorists will be significantly dealing with, long after Jagić. These theories also exposed Jagić as a forerunner of contemporary theorists, because in his works he had indicated numerous theses that many contemporary theorists were to develop - for example, the role of different historical circumstances in the interpretation of literary works, while the research of different types of texts would appear as a fundamental principle of new historicism; René Wellek and Austin Warren point out the inevitable role of criticism in the Croatian literary history; In his aesthetics of reception, Hans Robert Jauss focuses the evaluation of literary works on the readership; Krešimir Nemec points out the necessity of developing the literary history genre, all to be connected with vast other scientific knowledge (anthropology, ethnology, psychology, etc.); Ivana Žužul and Andrea Zlatar Violić confirm the dysfunctionality of periodization, etc. Therefore, Jagić can also be defined as a historian and scientist who, reflecting on the genre of literary history, created the foundations for the development of the literary science. New trends in the study of the genre, which combine objective knowledge and historians’ subjective assessments, have demonstrated the objectivity of (literary) history and confirmed the necessity of the historians' subjective input into such texts. Adapting the above to Jagić's literary-historical works, one notices, for example, a tendency to evaluate the value of literary works, the artistic quality of theatrical performances, the contribution of magazines to the shaping of the readers’ taste, etc. - this is particularly visible in the overviews of literature such as the following: Kratak priegled hrvatsko-srbske književnosti od posljednje dvie-tri godine (1866), Literatura horvatská (1864) and Plodovi književnosti hrvatsko-srbske od pošljednje dvie godine (1869). There is yet another important contribution of modern theories to the genre of (literary) history - by reconstructing history, the historian presents to the reader the knowledge he has gained, and thereby convinces the reader of the justification and accuracy of his reconstruction work. This can, for example, be applied to Jagić's Historiju književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srbskoga (1867) in which he dealt with both the general history presentation and literary phenomena interpretation, while the reader, on the other hand, is not able to examine the records and materials which the historian had worked on to verify their correctness. Therefore, it can be truly said that thanks to historians, history gets a new context, image and directions of interpretation.