On The Historical Sense Of New Criticism

It is generally believed that New Criticism emphasizes close reading todiscover how a work of literature functions as a self-contained, self-referentialaesthetic object. It tried to revise traditional ways of literary studies and focuses onthe text in order to exclude the reader’s response, the author’s intention, historicaland cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from analysis. Because of this, LionelTrilling criticized this critical approach as “lack of the sense of history”. NewCriticism, therefore, was considered to be a critical approach which lacks historicalsense. However, after careful study of its history and analyze its major critics andtheir critical practices, we find that to perceive the New Criticism as anti-historicismand accuse the New Critics of divorcing literature from its place in history isunjustifiable. New Criticism is not diametrically limited within the text. In fact, itshistorical sense can be demonstrated in both its theories and critical practices.In this thesis, the historical sense of New Criticism is discussed in threeaspects. The aspect of its theories is first given. Through thorough study andcomparison of some key critics’ theories such as that of T. S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooksand Rene Wellek, it is evident that all of these three put tradition/history in a veryimportant position in appreciating literary works. In this light, conclusion can bedrawn that to say New Criticism excludes history and abandon tradition is the resultof incomprehensive study. Followed with a thorough analysis of “Dante” togetherwith “Ben Johnson” by T. S. Eliot,“Marvell’s ‘Horatian Ode’” by Cleanth Brooksand also chapters from A History of Modern Criticism by Rene Wellek, the historicalsense of New Criticism from its literary critical practices is illustrated. In the finalanalysis, historical sense of New Criticism from the aspect of its differences withRussian Formalism will be taken into discussion. It is pointed out that although bothbelong to formalism New Criticism differs with Russian Formalism in its focus onhistory and tradition. Based on the above analysis, conclusion is drawn that although in academic field it is mainly believed that New Criticism is disjointed with historyand lacks historical sense, it is not the case if we carefully go through its theories andcritical practices. To sum up with R. Wellek’s remarks, New Criticism had adoptedan almost utterly historical outline in its literary studies; strong historical sense isrevealed at all times.