In this week's New Yorker, in notes published by Philip Roth, Saul
Bellow defines Historicism as "an academic product whose premise is
that urban multitudes make the culture of their countries. Together we
share the high significance or glamour of Paris and London. "
Presumably (but perhaps not) he was remembering the definition
circulating at the Univ of Chicago, where it was not unusual to hear
that the New Historicism emphasized the role of the court on
literature. Bellow goes on to ask a question that may suggest just
where we are in literary studies: " Its attractions are boundless, but
is it everything it claims to be? We are fascinated by it, but we are
also wary of its claims to be the setting of settings and the formative
power behind the phenomena. We had learned in our Chicagos and New
Yorks that the great treasures of culture were not indispensable--that
one can live without it."
My question is, was Bellow echoing the definition of historicism or new
historicism circulating at Chicago, or was he remembering an older
definition of historicism, and if so, can anyone tell me where to find
the old historicism so defined?
Charlie Ross
Purdue Univ.
|