New Historical and cultural criticism

Rereading the New Criticism, eds. Miranda B. Hickman and John D. McIntyre, 2012

Inspired by a range of new commentary reconsidering the New Criticism (e.g., Jane Gallop, Terry Eagleton, Charles Altieri, Camille Paglia), the essays in *Rereading the New Criticism* reevaluate the New Critical corpus, trace its legacy, and explore resources it might offer for the future of theory, criticism, and pedagogy. Addressing the work of New Critics such as John Crowe Ransom, Cleanth Brooks, and Robert Penn Warren, as well as important forerunners of the New Critics such as I.A. Richards and William Empson, these ten essays, with an introduction and an epilogue from the editors, shed new light on the genesis of the New Criticism: they revisit its chief arguments and methods, consider its significant contributions to the development of academic literary studies in North America, and address how its theories and techniques might inform methodologies for literary and cultural studies in the twenty-first century.

Comparative Literature Studies, 2002

The Johns Hopkins Guide to …, 1994

The Journal of Turk-Islam World Social Studies, 2017

New Historicism has been one of the most influential literary theories since the early 1980s. It is fact that new historicism was influenced by Jacques Derrida"s deconstruction theory. For this reason it is very crucial to figure out the nature of deconstruction technique to understand new historicism. While deconstruction technique attempts to interpret a text by understanding its subconscious, new historicism tries to understand a literary work by reading non-literary works of that era. In contrast to this similarity between them, there are also considerable differences between the two theories. In this study, these two theories are evaluated comparatively.

Poetics Today, 2014

This special issue arose from questions of whether or not the New Historicist paradigm in early modern studies has been superseded by newer theoretical approaches and, if so, whether these have entirely broken with New Historicist tenets ("after") or are in constructive dialogue with them ("beyond"). This introduction and the following essays lay out a number of considerations that argue for the existence of newer approaches; at the same time, they demonstrate that questions dominant in New Historicist work, as well as New Historicist modes of writing, continue to inform recent research in early modern studies. In the first chapter of his book After Theory, Terry Eagleton (2003: 1-2) asserts: "There can be no going back to an age when it was enough to pronounce Keats delectable or Milton a doughty spirit. It is not as though the whole project [i.e., theory] was a ghastly mistake on which some merciful soul has now blown the whistle, so that we can all return to whatever it was that we were doing before Ferdinand de Saussure heaved over the horizon." Eagleton's (ibid.: 2) insistence that we should not return to a pretheoretical literary impressionism notwithstanding, he is nostalgic about an "older generation" of theoreticians who followed in the wake of Saussure, or whose work has come into the public domain as a consequence of the reception of

1978

ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature, 1991

AHE NEW HISTORICISM is about ten years old. In the turmoil of contemporary theory, shelf-life may not equal half-life. New historicism still excites readers and remains fully charged. Rather than speculate at length on the future of this loose confederacy or multivalent movement, I would like to discuss its attractions and accomplishments and mention its occasional shortcomings. The essays that Vesser has collected in The New Historicism 1 deserve careful reading and provide insights and pleasures. This review concentrates on the recent changes to new historicism, on its use of anecdote or narrative, on the techniques it shares with other methodologies, and on its disparities, which may have implications for its future. 2 Louis Montrose says that although in 1980 Michael McCanles was the first to use "new historicism," Stephen Greenblatt's use of the term in 1982 gave it currency (32, n. 6). 3 New historicism has recently undergone three great changes. First, in the United States it has become the dominant discourse in studies of the English Renaissance. Second, it has extended its range of practitioners to include those interested in feminism, deconstruction, Marxism, and other discourses. Third, it has moved outside the Renaissance to other periods just as deconstruction came to range beyond romanticism. Scholars and students of the English Renaissance cite Greenblatt more than any other critic. It took a few years for the full import of Renaissance Self-Fashioning (1980) to be felt. The paradoxes and subtle qualifications that mark the opening of this ARIEL:

This is a paper that I wrote for OT Exegesis class, just slightly edited. In the first part, I attempt to triangulate the mentality of historical critical approach by reviewing work of Spinoza, Eichhorn, and Wellhausen. In the second part, I'm reviewing reception of historical criticism in conservative camp, by "close reading" school (Cassuto, Clines) and by theological exegesis movement (Barth, Childs, Moberly, Hays). I contend that whereas historical critical approach is essentially modern, theological exegesis is essentially postmodern. I think that Childs, in a sense, was a prototype postmodern scholar. In the concluding chapter I'm contemplating proper places of synchronic and diachronic approach and giving an example.