New Historicism Presentation by Brittany Deuel ENGL 485

New Historicism Presentation by: Brittany Deuel ENGL 485

Definition: New historicism is “a method based on the parallel reading of literary and non-literary texts, usually of the same historical period… instead of a literary ‘foreground’ and a historical ‘background’ it envisages and practices a mode of study in which literary and non literary texts are given equal weight and constantly inform or interrogate each other” (Barry 166). In my own words: new historicism is a method of understanding literary and non-literary texts and the historical period in which they were written by drawing parallels between the texts, keeping in mind that all literature is biased and a product of the acceptable cultural, political, and social practices of its time.

Background: Term ‘new historicism’ and establishment of this type of criticism developed by Stephen Greenblatt (Barry 166). Greenblatt’s Renaissance Self-Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare is credited as the beginning of this criticism. According to Greenblatt, “it [new historicism] involves an intensified willingness to read all of the textual traces of the past with the attention traditionally conferred only on literary texts” (qtd. in Barry 166).

Notes: New historicism attempts to read literature from a fresh perspective; it ignores any previous work that might have attempted to understand the cultural and historical context of the piece in question. By cross referencing literary and non-literary texts, from the same historical period, new historicists develop new understandings of both texts. According to an article by The Virtual Theorist, titled “New Historicism, ” “New historicists argue that works of literature do not independently transcend their time, as the New Criticism claimed, but are instead always socially and politically implicated within their historical context. ” For Barry, this type of literary criticism takes away the ‘privilege’ previously given to literary works (166). All forms of text are considered equal because all forms of text are influenced by the circumstances of the writer and historical period in which it is written.

According to Barry: The following steps are followed by new historicists: 1) “They juxtapose literary and non-literary texts, reading the former in light of the latter. 2) They try thereby to ‘defamiliarise’ the canonical literary text, detaching it from the accumulated weight of previous literary scholarship and seeing it as if new. 3) They focus attention (within both text and co-text) on issues of state power and how it is maintained, on patriarchal structures and their perpetuation, and on the process of colonisation, with its accompanying ‘mind-set’. 4) They make use, in doing so, of aspects of the post-structuralist outlook, especially Derrida’s notion that every facet of reality is textualised, and Foucault’s idea of social structures as determined by dominant ‘discursive practices’ ” (173)

Compare As opposed to the Marxist criticism, which sees an economic undertone as the basis for the political agenda being propagandized in literature, new historicism focuses on any form of political intention (Barry 153). When compared to cultural materialism (cultural materialism being the British counterpart), cultural materialism is politically optimistic and new historicism is politically pessimistic. Also, cultural materialists feel that the skepticism of new historicists (in regards to acquiring ‘secure’ knowledge) prevents them from being able to be effective politically. Most notably, where cultural materialists situate the literary text in the political circumstances of our day, new historicists do so in the circumstance of its own day (179). In regards to structuralist and post-structuralist theories, which tend “to reconnect a work with the time period in which it was produced and identify it with the cultural and political movements of the time (Michel Foucault's concept of épistème)…” new historicists “assume that every work is a product of the historic moment that created it (Brizee and Tompkins).

Examples: According to Barry, a prime example of new historicism in action can be seen in Louis Montrose’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Shaping Fantasies of Elizabethan Culture: Gender, Power, Form’ (173 -174). “His overall thesis is that the play ‘creates the culture by which it is created, shapes the fantasies by which it is shaped’ (p. 130)” (Barry 173). Consider Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote when studied alongside The Treaty of London (1604). Don Quixote can be used as a method of explaining the irresolute ‘end’ to the conflict that was ‘resolved’ by the Treaty of London signed in 1604 between Spain and England. Don Quixote could not come to terms with the fact that he was ‘insane’ in the eyes of those around him, and a number of poor circumstances follow. The monarchy could not come to terms with the fact that a real solution to the problem was far from coming to fruition, and the treaty is as ridiculous, and negative consequences follow the treaty, as well. Perhaps, the monarchy was as clueless as Don Quixote. According to Paul Van. Develder, the treaty “purposefully left unresolved the question of who owned what in distant lands (“ 1604 Treaty between Spain and England”). The works can be seen as paralleling each other in nature because of the ignorance of the leading characters (Don Quixote and the Spanish monarchy). New Historicists would delve further into these works, tying together portions of the texts that might at first glance seem to be entirely unrelated.

Biblical Perspective The historical context of scripture is relevant in understanding biblical principles. However, one of the most important aspects of new historicism requires critics to reject the notion of “secure knowledge” (Barry 179). As Christians, above all else, we know that we read in the Bible is secure knowledge. We can rest assured that the Word of God is sure and true. To consider any portion of the Bible from a new historicist perspective would be to recognize its meaning and contents as ever-changing. Hebrews 13: 8 says: “Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same, yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages) (AMP). (Because God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all part of the Trinity [they are one and the same] we can assume that the Word was and always will be sure. )

What types of problems might arise when reading the New Testament from a new historicist perspective? Provide a particular story or book in the New Testament of the Bible that demonstrates the particular issues you came up with. Question 1

Works Cited “ 1604 Treaty Between Spain and England. ” Savagesand. Scoundrels. org. 2012. Web. 03 Mar 2015. Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009. Print. Brizee, Allen and J. Case Tompkins. “New Historicism, Cultural Studies (1980 s-present). “ Purdue Owl. 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 03 Mar 2015. “New Historicism. ” The Virtual Theorist. Higher Education Academy and Birmingham City University. 2013. Web. 03 Mar 2015.