2100单词，11500英文字符，4300汉字出处：Doğan E. New Historicism and Renaissance Culture*J+. Ankara ÜniversitesiDilveTarih-CoğrafyaFakültesiDergisi, 2005, 45(1): 77-95.原文NEW HISTORICISM AND RENAISSANCE CULTUREEvrimDoganAlthough this new form of historicism centers history as the subject of research, it differs from the "old" in its understanding of history. While traditional historicism regards history as "universal," new historicism considers it to be "cultural." According to Jeffrey N. Cox and Larry J.Reynolds, "new" historicism can be differentiated from "old" historicism "by its lack of faith in 'objectivity' and 'permanence' and its stress not upon the direct recreation of the past, but rather the process by which the past is constructed or invented" (1993: 4).This new outlook on history also brings about a new outlook on literature and literary criticism. Traditional literary historicism holds that the proper aim of literary criticism is to attempt to reconstruct the past objectively, whereas new historicism suggests that history is only knowable in the same sense literature is—through subjective interpretation: our understanding of the past is always conducted by our present consciousness’s. Louis Montrose, in his "Professing the Renaissance," lays out that as critics we are historically bound and we may only reconstruct the histories through the filter of our consciousness:Our analyses and our understandings necessarily proceed from our own historically, socially and institutionally shaped vantage points; that the histories we reconstruct are the textual constructs of critics who are, ourselves, historical subjects (1989: 23).For Montrose, contemporary historicism must recognize that "not only the poet but also the critic exists in history" and that the texts are "inscriptions of history" and furthermore that "our comprehension, representation, interpretation of the texts of the past always proceeds by a mixture of estrangement and appropriation.".Montrose suggests that this kind of critical practice constitutes a continuous dialogue between a "poetics" and a "politics" of culture.In Montrose's opinion, the complete recovery of meanings in a diverse historical outlook is considered necessary since older historical criticism is "illusory," in that it attempts to "recover meanings that are in any final or absolute sense authentic, correct, and complete," because scholarship constantly "constructs and delimits" the objects of study and the scholar is "historically positioned vis-a-vis that object:"The practice of a new historical criticism invites rhetorical strategies by which to foreground the constitutive acts of textuality that traditional modes of literary history efface or misrecognize. It also necessitates efforts to historicize the present as well as the past, and to historicize the dialectic between them—those reciprocal historical pressures by which the past has shaped the present and the present reshapes the past.The new historicist outlook on literary criticism is primarily against literary formalism that excludes all considerations external to the "text," and evaluates it in isolation.The preliminary concern of new historicism is to refigure the relationship between texts and the cultural system in which they were produced. In terms of new historicism, a literary text can only be evaluated in its social, historical, and political contexts. Therefore, new historicism renounces the formalist conception of literature as an autonomous aesthetic order that transcends the needs and interests ofa society. A literary text cannot be considered apart from the society that produced it: a literary text is another form of social significance which is produced by the society and in return is active in reshaping the culture of that society. Thus, new historicism explains how texts not only represent culturally constructed patterns, but also reproduce cultural constructions:Contrary to the New Critical insistence on the autonomy of literary texts and on the importance of reading such texts "intrinsically," new historicists believe that it makes no sense to separate literary texts from the social context around them because such texts are the product of complex social "exchanges" or "negotiations".New historicism criticism is one of the most important schools of literary criticism in the 20th century, it is popular in Europe and the United States in the 1980 s literary critic's interest in the Renaissance.The criticism mode is of the twentieth century in Europe and the empirical research center as well as the text research of backwash, is a kind of different from the old historicism and formalism criticism of the "new" methods of literary criticism. This paper mainly illustrates the concept of literary theory to the new historicism criticism. From the Abrams puts forward "world, art, writer, the reader" said four elements, inspected the new historicism criticism in literary theory on the difference of opinion, discusses the criticism method in the whole history of the 20th century western literary criticism of the plays a positive role and the deficiency of this theory own existence.On the theory of new historicism criticism genre. When talking about the criticism genre about literary theory points, this paper emphatically points out that the new historicism criticism is a bottom-up criticism genre, first it is a kind of practice is not doctrine, the biggest characteristic of the new historicism criticism mode is compatible and package. They are dedicated to restore the historical factors in the study of literature and claims will be researched in the social context of the large text, implements the 20th century literature writer center - work - reader’s center - the center of the social transfer. It pursues a kind of new rules in practice "cultural poetics", namely the literature in the whole big culture system, the elements in the literature to full-blown antenna and the cultural interaction and stars appear having a unique style. ABU to discourse, the new historicism criticism to the transformation of four elements, analyzed the new historicism criticism of its own writers of the subject. Writer is composed of the text in the social life or even more is the world of language to construct complete self-shape, remade itself in the form of text again the process of writing down, in this way to achieve the shape of others. In the new historicism criticism of the literary theory of "intersexuality" it is very important. New historicism criticism by Foucault, the influence of Hayden white, history, literature and history at the same level, broke the traditional subordinate relations, a different approach for literary study. New historicism criticism of pay more attention to the ideology of literature and literary theory of the view to overturn and inhibit the collocation, with a new perspective to the essence of the problem. New historicism criticism of macro to make analysis.Thinking this criticism genre, in a sense to the development of the western literary criticism opens up a new way, it by its own practice, active integrate cultural studies of the ocean, with unique criticism mode to win a place in it. It navigates between cultural studies and literary criticism study, by the simple text research mainly into the research on the level of economy, politics, social issues, the new historicism criticism advocating a comprehensive thinking mode, also can be regarded as a subject thinking of too fine a backwash.New historicism criticism from the author center criticism and textual criticism to multiple cultural poetics criticism. At the sametime, it also exists in the process of exploring various defects. First of all, the criticism mainly comes from internal methodology and the concrete practice of contradictions. New historicism criticism in practice and no real formed distinctive criticism method, it explains the problems existing in the literary activities, there are many places can't get rid of the shackle of formalism criticism on methodology. Second, new historicism criticism tend to synchronic to determine in the text of "intertextuality" system, they examined the object of noting have is not starting from the subjective needs, thus ignoring the diachronic investigation on the text in the evolution history of literature development, caused the confusion of time and space. Again, the new historicism criticism has the macroscopic field of vision, but based on the limitations of its history, its history and text are the lack of overall grasp .New historicism criticism will in their own practice and cultural strategy, prompted us to make our own culture reflection in the early new century. New historicism is also critical of deconstruction, which also has an ahistorical method. Nevertheless, it has borrowed certain aspects from post- structuralism like the doctrine of plurality—that a literary work may have different connotations to different people.The theories that are most close to New Historicism are Marxism, Feminism, and Cultural Materialism in their being skeptical of the formalist view of literature as an autonomous realm of discourse.David Forgacs, in his "Marxist Literary Theories," puts forward that regardless of the diversity of Marxist theories, there is one assumption that is final, which is "that literature can only be properly understood within a larger framework of social reality" (1986: 167). This social reality is "not an indistinct background out of which literature emerges or into which it blends" (1986: 167).The literary criticism of New Historicism, one of the most important literary criticism school of 20th century, is different from the traditional historicism and formalism. The critical method has profoundly influenced on the discussion of literary history rewriting and creating of New Historicism novels. The thesis will be helpful to study and compile the 21st century Chinese literary history by interpreting the view of literary history within New Historicism.This thesis consists of three parts. The first part mainly explains the viewpoint of new historicism on history, basing on the history view of Michel Foucault, metahistorical theory of Hayden White and the theory of Louis A. Montrose: the historicity of texts and the textually of histories. It argues that history is not an objective being but a “historical narrative” or “historiography”. Thus history is not only a reappearance of historical events but also an imaginary construction, which derives from some thoughts of historical reality. The most important change is the emergence of the sexuality of history. History changes from “unique story” to “one story”, namely the “History” is replaced by “histories”.The focuses on the view of literary history within the New Historicism, in which the relationship of history and literature totally changed. Literature does not reflect the historical reality any more. History is not the background of literature, either. Literature becomes the union of history and ideology, having a relation of interaction. New Historicism stresses the ideology of literary history, which means a multi-function of literature to ideology: there are consolidation, subversion and containment to subversion.It shows that, on the one hand, literature is created by the network of social power, which demands people to abide by the decrees and contend with current situation; on the other hand,literature often challenges even subverts the hegemony of traditional ideology in some obscure ways.The "definite shape" of social reality is "found in history, which Marxists see as a series of struggles between antagonistic social classes and the types of economic production they engage in" (1986: 167). As Gallagher points out in her "Marxism and New Historicism," one major distinction between new historicism and Marxist criticism is that "the new historicist, unlike the Marxist, is under no nominal compulsion to achieve consistency. She may even insist that historical curiosity can develop independently of political concerns" (1989: 46).Literature, for new historicism, is a social and cultural creation constructed by more than one consciousness, and it cannot be diminished to a product of a single mind. Therefore, the best way of analysis is achieved through the lens of the culture that produced it. Literature is a specific vision of history and not a distinct category of human activity. Man himself is a social construct; there is no such thing as a universal human nature that surpasses history: history is a series of "ruptures" between ages and man. As a consequence, the critic is trapped in his own historicity. No one can rise above their own cultural formations, their own ideological upbringing in order to understand the past in its own terms. Therefore, it is impossible for a modern reader to appreciate a literary work as its contemporaries experienced it. As a result, the best approach to literary criticism is to try to reconstruct the "ideology" of its culture by taking the text as its basis and by exploring diverse areas of cultural factors.Catherine Gallagher explains new historicism as "reading literary and non-literary texts as constituents of historical discourses that are both inside and outside of texts". Gallagher moreover puts forward that the practitioners of new historicism "generally posit no hierarchy of cause and effect as they trace the connections among texts, discourses, power, and the constitution of a subjectivity". Louis Montrose asserts that the focus of this new vein of literary criticism is an attempt to refigure "the socio-cultural field within which canonical renaissance literary and dramatic works were originally produced" and to resituate them "not only in relationship to other genres and modes of discourse but also in relationship to contemporaneous social institutions and non-discursive practices".译文新历史主义和文艺复兴时期的文化艾弗瑞姆·多根虽然这种新形式的历史主义将历史作为研究的中心主题，以区别它与“旧”历史主义。