论文部分内容阅读
Since the linguistic turn in the early 20th century， some new characteristics also influenced the research of literature theory. For instance， some schools， such as New Criticism and Structuralism， focused on the research of literary texts and endowed the concept of text with highly profound meanings. Much more attention was paid to interpret the text and different ways of interpretation came into being. From the abundant connotation of texts， we can have a better understanding of different literary theories. In the essay， the author means to carry out a comparative analysis of textual view between New Criticism and New Historicism， for both of them are closely related with the texts and renowned for their viewpoints of text. The author will elaborate on the similarities and differences of them， and the differences will be illustrated concretely so as to grasp the essence of the theories.
When it comes to the similarities， it seems that they are not relevant at all. However， there is a close relationship of inheritance and negotiation between them. From the academic experience of Stephen Greenblatt， the pioneer of New Historicism， it can be found that his experience implies the colonization of New Historicism by New Criticism to some extent（Shao 12）. Besides， both criticisms emphasize the importance of text and are easy to put into practice.
Comparatively speaking， the differences outweigh the similarities， and the differences between New Criticism and New Historicism will be expounded from two main aspects： the historical background and the content. First of all， the historical background are quite different. As for New Criticism， it emerged in England in the 1920s， came into being in the America in the 1930s， took a dominant position in the America from 1940s to1950s， and began to get judged and denounced in the 1960s. Before the birth of New Criticism， the romanticism had been the mainstream and foundation of western literature of the 19th century. The romanticism renders the literary works as “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings： it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility” so that the literary critics concentrate on the experience and background of the author and the social context instead of the text itself. Afterwards， New Criticism， which highlighted the text， challenged the traditional trend and became the brave betrayer. In terms of New Historicism， it appeared in 1980s after the post-structuralism declined. Precisely speaking， it already emerged at the end of 1970s and brought new way of research for literary criticism. What’s more， the critics of New Historicism had absorbed the thoughts from other schools， including the ideological thought from the western Marxism and the theory of “discourse power” by Foucault. Since the New Historicism both criticized and inherited its preceding theories， it eventually smashed the boundaries of the world， the author， the literary works and the readers and mixed them together， creating a new school of criticism with new textual view. Apart from the historical background， the second main difference is the content of these two textual views， comprising the range of text， the relationship between text and history， and the operation method. In the first place， the two schools give a different definition of the range of text. New Critics insists on the ontology， which is initially borrowed from the philosophy by John Crowe Ransom and gradually used in the field of literary criticism. Before Ransom puts forward the theory of literary ontology， there are already similar viewpoints which resemble the text-centered approach. For instance， in 1920， T.S. Eliot used to express his theory of “depersonalization” in his book， Tradition and the Individual Talent， like this： “poetry is not a turning loose of emotion， but an escape from emotion； it is not the expression of personality， but an escape from personality.” From the claim of New Critics， it can be easily discovered that the text， in the eyes of New Critics， is an independently autonomous entity which merely relies on the literary text itself and excludes both “the intentional fallacy” and “the affective fallacy”. Generally speaking， the literary texts are self-contained and self-sufficient. Different from the text-centered approach， the concept of text in the New Historicism is endowed with broader meaning. The textism of New Criticism only focuses on the words within an enclosed text while the text of New Historicism refers to various kinds of texts in a much more wider range， including memoirs， achieves， reports， interviews， autobiographies. The advocates of New Historicism are convinced that the narrow literary text can be unreliable and even cheating while a wider social historical text can be more credible and indispensable. Hence， we can find that the range of text between these two schools is distinct although they both show great interest in the literary text.
What’s more， the difference of content between these two schools also lies in their relationship with history. History， especially the written work of history， is inevitably associated with literature， but whether the historical texts can be considered as literature？ New Critics don not give a clear answer of the relationship between literature and history. Nevertheless， clues also show that the ontology， or the textism， is suspicious of the function of history. As Zhao Yiheng put it， the New Criticism notices that the important thing is to insist on the difference between literature and other forms of discourse at the very beginning. Only by reading in the way of interpreting literature can other forms of discourse be deemed as literature. For example， the historical book， Shi Ji， must be read in the way of literature if it is judged as literature（Zhao 24）. Compared with the conservative attitude of New Critics， the pioneers of New Historicism are sure that the history and literature are absolutely inseparable and intertwined. The New Historicism puts emphasis on “the textuality of histories” and “the historicity of texts”， which shows a close relationship between history and text. “The textuality of histories” denotes that the so-called “history” we have known today is likely to be gathered together， made up by imagination and influenced by the subjectivity of author， power， politics and so on. “The historicity of texts” indicates that any completed literary text will become a historical text with historical features and can be interpreted by anybody. Last but not least， the operation methods of the two textual views are distinct. Both New Criticism and New Historicism， as two schools which are suitable for actual practice， pay attention to put their theories into practice. Nevertheless， both the practice theories and the actual processes are different. As for New Criticism， it insists on the ontological criticism and the pure criticism so as to adopt the knowledge of linguistics and semiotics to analyze the literary language as concretely as possible. Specifically， the renowned “close reading” is the common way to interpret the text as deeply and completely as possible. Furthermore， the method of close reading seems to be exceedingly appropriate to interpret the poetry， for the poems are naturally compact， succinct and meaningful. William Empson concluded a large number of ambiguous phenomenon in poetry in his book， Seven Types of Ambiguity. Ambiguity， according to Empson， includes “any verbal nuance， however slight， which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language.” The theories of “tension” and “paradox” by Cleanth Brooks are used to interpret the rhetoric types in the poems. As for the New Historicism， the critics also call it “cultural poetics”， which can reveal that it involves almost every subtle aspect in the society. They believe that “the method is to revert to the individual experience and the special social condition in which every man and woman have to confront with the material needs and the social stresses， to settle on some similar texts with sympathy”（Zhang 14）. Obviously， the operation method of New Historicism is to collect as much material concerning the text as possible and to dig out the intertextualiy between the text and the social context. In the process of interpretation， the critics of New Historicism are alert enough in order not to be misled by the mainstream， sparing no efforts to unveil the dominating ideology and the repressed marginal ideology.
In conclusion， New Criticism and New Historicism are two schools which have similarities and differences from the perspective of textual concept. The similarities lie in the relationship of inheritance and negotiation between them while the difference includes the historical background and the content of them. By comparison and contrast， it may enhance the understanding of the two schools of criticism and enrich the knowledge of textual view.
References：
[1]T.S.Eliot，“Tradition and Individual Talent，”The Sacred Wood，Essays on Poetry and Criticism.London：Metheun
When it comes to the similarities， it seems that they are not relevant at all. However， there is a close relationship of inheritance and negotiation between them. From the academic experience of Stephen Greenblatt， the pioneer of New Historicism， it can be found that his experience implies the colonization of New Historicism by New Criticism to some extent（Shao 12）. Besides， both criticisms emphasize the importance of text and are easy to put into practice.
Comparatively speaking， the differences outweigh the similarities， and the differences between New Criticism and New Historicism will be expounded from two main aspects： the historical background and the content. First of all， the historical background are quite different. As for New Criticism， it emerged in England in the 1920s， came into being in the America in the 1930s， took a dominant position in the America from 1940s to1950s， and began to get judged and denounced in the 1960s. Before the birth of New Criticism， the romanticism had been the mainstream and foundation of western literature of the 19th century. The romanticism renders the literary works as “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings： it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility” so that the literary critics concentrate on the experience and background of the author and the social context instead of the text itself. Afterwards， New Criticism， which highlighted the text， challenged the traditional trend and became the brave betrayer. In terms of New Historicism， it appeared in 1980s after the post-structuralism declined. Precisely speaking， it already emerged at the end of 1970s and brought new way of research for literary criticism. What’s more， the critics of New Historicism had absorbed the thoughts from other schools， including the ideological thought from the western Marxism and the theory of “discourse power” by Foucault. Since the New Historicism both criticized and inherited its preceding theories， it eventually smashed the boundaries of the world， the author， the literary works and the readers and mixed them together， creating a new school of criticism with new textual view. Apart from the historical background， the second main difference is the content of these two textual views， comprising the range of text， the relationship between text and history， and the operation method. In the first place， the two schools give a different definition of the range of text. New Critics insists on the ontology， which is initially borrowed from the philosophy by John Crowe Ransom and gradually used in the field of literary criticism. Before Ransom puts forward the theory of literary ontology， there are already similar viewpoints which resemble the text-centered approach. For instance， in 1920， T.S. Eliot used to express his theory of “depersonalization” in his book， Tradition and the Individual Talent， like this： “poetry is not a turning loose of emotion， but an escape from emotion； it is not the expression of personality， but an escape from personality.” From the claim of New Critics， it can be easily discovered that the text， in the eyes of New Critics， is an independently autonomous entity which merely relies on the literary text itself and excludes both “the intentional fallacy” and “the affective fallacy”. Generally speaking， the literary texts are self-contained and self-sufficient. Different from the text-centered approach， the concept of text in the New Historicism is endowed with broader meaning. The textism of New Criticism only focuses on the words within an enclosed text while the text of New Historicism refers to various kinds of texts in a much more wider range， including memoirs， achieves， reports， interviews， autobiographies. The advocates of New Historicism are convinced that the narrow literary text can be unreliable and even cheating while a wider social historical text can be more credible and indispensable. Hence， we can find that the range of text between these two schools is distinct although they both show great interest in the literary text.
What’s more， the difference of content between these two schools also lies in their relationship with history. History， especially the written work of history， is inevitably associated with literature， but whether the historical texts can be considered as literature？ New Critics don not give a clear answer of the relationship between literature and history. Nevertheless， clues also show that the ontology， or the textism， is suspicious of the function of history. As Zhao Yiheng put it， the New Criticism notices that the important thing is to insist on the difference between literature and other forms of discourse at the very beginning. Only by reading in the way of interpreting literature can other forms of discourse be deemed as literature. For example， the historical book， Shi Ji， must be read in the way of literature if it is judged as literature（Zhao 24）. Compared with the conservative attitude of New Critics， the pioneers of New Historicism are sure that the history and literature are absolutely inseparable and intertwined. The New Historicism puts emphasis on “the textuality of histories” and “the historicity of texts”， which shows a close relationship between history and text. “The textuality of histories” denotes that the so-called “history” we have known today is likely to be gathered together， made up by imagination and influenced by the subjectivity of author， power， politics and so on. “The historicity of texts” indicates that any completed literary text will become a historical text with historical features and can be interpreted by anybody. Last but not least， the operation methods of the two textual views are distinct. Both New Criticism and New Historicism， as two schools which are suitable for actual practice， pay attention to put their theories into practice. Nevertheless， both the practice theories and the actual processes are different. As for New Criticism， it insists on the ontological criticism and the pure criticism so as to adopt the knowledge of linguistics and semiotics to analyze the literary language as concretely as possible. Specifically， the renowned “close reading” is the common way to interpret the text as deeply and completely as possible. Furthermore， the method of close reading seems to be exceedingly appropriate to interpret the poetry， for the poems are naturally compact， succinct and meaningful. William Empson concluded a large number of ambiguous phenomenon in poetry in his book， Seven Types of Ambiguity. Ambiguity， according to Empson， includes “any verbal nuance， however slight， which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language.” The theories of “tension” and “paradox” by Cleanth Brooks are used to interpret the rhetoric types in the poems. As for the New Historicism， the critics also call it “cultural poetics”， which can reveal that it involves almost every subtle aspect in the society. They believe that “the method is to revert to the individual experience and the special social condition in which every man and woman have to confront with the material needs and the social stresses， to settle on some similar texts with sympathy”（Zhang 14）. Obviously， the operation method of New Historicism is to collect as much material concerning the text as possible and to dig out the intertextualiy between the text and the social context. In the process of interpretation， the critics of New Historicism are alert enough in order not to be misled by the mainstream， sparing no efforts to unveil the dominating ideology and the repressed marginal ideology.
In conclusion， New Criticism and New Historicism are two schools which have similarities and differences from the perspective of textual concept. The similarities lie in the relationship of inheritance and negotiation between them while the difference includes the historical background and the content of them. By comparison and contrast， it may enhance the understanding of the two schools of criticism and enrich the knowledge of textual view.
References：
[1]T.S.Eliot，“Tradition and Individual Talent，”The Sacred Wood，Essays on Poetry and Criticism.London：Metheun