> So the two groups are fundamentally marxist,

Both branches of New Historicism, yes.  The Brits probably more overtly so 
than the Yanks, possibly, but both (also) heavily drawn to Foucault.

> but the older guys had to line
> up all the history ducks for play or poem contexts or else they felt
> criticism was stoopidly blind, whereas the New Historicists couldn't be 
> the
> least bit concerned about historical contexts (though they filtered all
> literature through a marxist cheesecloth) and they adore arguing the
> ideology that *they* feel plays and poems present.

Less that New Historicists are not, or less, concerned with the historical 
context as that, unlike the Old Historicists, they don't see this context as 
homogeneous so much as fractured.  And the marxism isn't something that 
intrudes, simply an unstated ground-base assumption.

> You and I, as fate would have it, were luckily (?) forced by our 
> professors
> to criticise poems and plays WITHOUT historical contexts.

Yeah, good old New Criticism -- "Treat every text as if it were written by 
an anonymous writer yesterday."  It's amazing how well this actually worked, 
and I found it all profoundly liberating, well before New Historicism was 
even a gleam in eternity's eye.  In an odd way, I don't find any opposition 
between New Criticism and New Historicism.  The best side of New Criticism, 
the ferociously close attention to the detail of a text, never did die, but 
simply got absorbed as a given into other kinds of criticism.

> The work itself
> was ALL.  One of the reasons implied was:  "A writer doesn't know what the
> hell she means anyway!

That was part of it, sure -- "To the dustbin with The Intentionalist 
Fallacy!"

> WE must figure that out!"  HA!  Truth, indeed, but
> only partial troot' !

All truths are partial -- as a New Historicist might say.  <g>

> joodles who suggests that Partick's friend email Robin directly!

Hm, Janet might not want to be confused by my somewhat cavalier and curious 
ideas.

> Remind me about Terence Hawkes's Presentism; I seem to recall it being NH
> but with a terrible vengeance.

I really don't know that much about it, other than what I do know is that it 
seems to me, whether they say this or not, the natural outgrowth of New 
Historicism.  It seems very much Terence Hawkes' baby (and I think he's 
enormously impressive as a writer) with John Drukkakis as his prophet and 
Hardy Cook as cheerleader.

But hey, life's too short sometimes to bother with even the best of 
criticism.  Me back to trying to make sense of the plain text of _Westward 
Ho_, not the easiest thing to do at the best of times.

Robin

> On 18 March 2010 06:54, Robin Hamilton 
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Robin thanksies
>>> re Historicists can usually be found negociating a site of conflict. 
>>> Put
>>> down:  "Oh, it's only anecdotal history when it comes down to it."
>>> Not sure how this actually happens -my life is anecdotal???:-)an example
>>> would help??
>>> P'hopeless
>>>
>>
>> Partly the New Historicism was a reaction to Tillyard's work in _The
>> Elizabethan World Picture_ and _Shakespeare's History Plays_, where 
>> Tillyard
>> constructed the world view of "an Elizabethan" from a mass of historical
>> evidence.
>>
>> Bullshit, said the New Historicists, there ain't no such thing as a
>> "typical" historical anything, so they tended to focus on using a single
>> text in relation to the works they are discussing.  Only thing that 
>> springs
>> to mind at the moment was that Harman's _Caveat_ or bits of it were used 
>> in
>> relation to _King Lear_.  This has the advantage of meaning you have to 
>> read
>> fewer books.  <g>  Oh, and the mites in French medieval cheeses book was 
>> a
>> big thing at one point.
>>
>> As to sites of conflict, New Historicists tend to be more interested in
>> argument rather than consensus, and look at points where ideologies 
>> clash.
>> (Thus, obviously, why they were drawn to Foucault.)  Can be a bit us vs.
>> them sometimes, and it nearly always has this marxist undercurrent.
>>
>> The best work in the area is actually quite good (but then, I would say
>> that, wouldn't I, having been a paid-up Renaissance scholar once in my 
>> wild
>> youth).   And J.W.Lever's _The Tragedy of State_, 
>> premature-New-Historicism,
>> is a lovely piece of work.  Mostly ignored when it came out, natch, till 
>> the
>> Brit New Historicists took it up.  Quietly, without mentioning it at 
>> first.
>> <g>
>>
>> Hope Janet enjoys working on her paper.  Keep me posted if you have a
>> moment.
>>
>> Robin
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Frisky Moll Press:  http://judithprince.com/home.html
>
> http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/jprince/
>
> "If I die during a crossword puzzle I am allowed to finish it."  ---Jeff
> Hecker, Norfolk, VA
>