Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture Type: Chapter; Author(s): Louis Montrose; Date: ; Page start: ; Page end: ; Web. Louis Adrian Montrose is an American literary theorist and academic scholar. His scholarship has addressed a wide variety of literary, historical, and theoretical topics and issues, and has significantly shaped contemporary studies of Renaissance poetics, English Renaissance theatre, Louis Montrose’s Homepage · Professing the Renaissance · Miriam Chen’s. Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture. Louis A. Montrose. There has recently emerged within Renaissance studies, as in Anglo- Ameri.
|Published (Last):||10 November 2011|
|PDF File Size:||3.13 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It has transmuted all that raw facticity into soul and form.
So what is the point of searching and describing these poetics in the first place? However, if we were to ask them to define what the New Historicism is, most of them would struggle to do so.
It would be incorrect to pass them off as such. The conversation with the living that I started is thus perhaps only the beginning, more of a chat really: When considering the last given quote, about the politics of the practice emerging through the analysis of the New Historicist, and assuming that this has a direct relation to this issue, there is however plenty evidence in the other texts: The outcome may completely dismantle the idea in itself, or help sustain it in its current form.
Hens-Piazza illustrates how the problem of defining the New Historicism is rooted in the genaissance of the very founding practitioners of the movement itself: The following analyses will be considered for this comparison: While this thesis in itself is not an actual New Historicist analysis but rather a reflection on the practice of the New Historicism, it shall start with an anecdote nonetheless.
The first question that thus needs to be asked is what loui the reader, in terms of the New Historicism? It is a question this thesis will not attempt to answer. To be fair, the distinction is not that easily made: Greenblatt, Stephen, and Catherine Gallagher.
It thus makes it hard to spot the difference between a synchronic and diachronic approach of the scholar towards a literary text and its relationship with reality. Dutton, Richard and Richard Wilson.
If in an initial stage the shared methodology would already prove to be inconsistent, the conclusion must have been that either closer study was needed or that it is not possible to speak of a shared framework within the New Historicism. Yet, both these lists provide inconclusive arguments regarding the poetics of the New Historicism: In general, this aspect should be concerned with how the text is of importance to the critic now and how the historical distance between critic and text has a function today.
Rather, it advocates a shared interest in each one of these four aspects, as hinted at above. For Hens-Piazza then, the New Historicism views literature like other social and cultural practices, artifacts, relics and data of a context. Levinson, Marjorie, et al.
Louis Montrose – Wikipedia
Though he accuses those who talk about the containment-subversion dichotomy of being reductive, he reduces the concepts even further down to only one: This allows the New Historicist to ask new questions to literature, such what its influence may have been in the construction of social context or how social context, ideology, has influenced the production of literature However, due to the limited nature of this thesis, it would be wrong to draw this conclusion.
The New Historicism of Stephen Greenblatt. The framework that resulted from this was, however, a derision from several critical introductions to the New Historicism, and thus only a theoretical one. And lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful girlfriend Ine Verheyen, for her support and also for correcting my work and spotting the odd comma, which is not my strong suit; thank you very much.
Louis Montrose | Literary Theory and Criticism
In that sense, Veeser The University of Chicago Press, While Montrose claims not to psychoanalyze, he does so anyway. Yet, what is a theoretical framework without a practice?
This tendency montroose, however, not occur in every one of the seven texts used as background material here. The distinction between diachronic and synchronic almost seems negligible in this sense: An example of this relative autonomy might be in order: Click here to sign up. As pointed earlier, while his name is mentioned several times alongside those of Stephen Greenblatt and Catherine Gallagher, very little attention has been paid to his actual work so far.
New York and London: Rwnaissance his survey fromH. When concerned with the diachronic aspect of the relation between text and reality, it becomes a question of historical distance: Essays in Cultural Materialism. Text and reality are indistinguishable for the New Historicism: In the other texts he is mentioned by name alone. That is to say that there is no study or survey that has collected a vast set of ideas, poetics, which define the practice that we today call the New Historicism.
Others focus upon the contradictions, tensions, and aporia in writings. Stephen Greenblatt offers a working definition, which Dollimore adopts in his work: The job of the mongrose – our job – is to produce this point of departure.
Nevertheless, collective structures may enable as well as constrain individual agency; and they may be potentially enabling precisely when they are experienced by the subject as multiple, heterogeneous, and monttose contradictory in their imperatives.
Reality is drawn into the text, making the text part of what is outside and a cultural sign.
Viewing literature as on par with other types of texts, the privileging of literature or its composition over and above other social practices is rejected.