外國(guó)歷史文學(xué)外文翻譯 （節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　2100單詞，11500英文字符，4300漢字</p><p>　　出處：Do?an E. New Historicism and Renaissance Culture[J]. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Co?rafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 2005, 45(1): 77-95.</p><p

2、><b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　NEW HISTORICISM AND RENAISSANCE CULTURE</p><p>　　Evrim Dogan</p><p>　　Although this new form of historicism centers history as the subject of r

3、esearch, it differs from the "old" in its understanding of history. While traditional historicism regards history as "universal," new historicism considers it to be "cultural." Accordin

4、g 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 stres

5、s not upon the direct recreation of the past, but rather the process</p><p>　　This new outlook on history also brings about a new outlook on literature and literary criticism. Traditional literary histo

6、ricism 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

7、interpretation: our understanding of the past is always conducted by our present consciousness’s. Louis Montrose, in his "Professing the Renaissance," lays </p><p>　　Our analyses and our under

8、standings 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

9、 (1989: 23). </p><p>　　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

10、" and furthermore that "our comprehension, representation, interpretation of the texts of the past always proceeds by a mixture of estrangement and appropriation.". </p><p>　　Montrose sug

11、gests that this kind of critical practice constitutes a continuous dialogue between a "poetics" and a "politics" of culture. </p><p>　　In Montrose's opinion, the complete recover

12、y 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 authen

13、tic, correct, and complete," because scholarship constantly "constructs and delimits" the objects of study and the scholar is "historically positioned vis-a-vis that object:" </p><p>

14、;　　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 neces

15、sitates 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 pa

16、st. </p><p>　　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.

17、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

18、 social, historical, and political contexts. Therefore, new historicism renounces the formalist conception </p><p>　　Contrary to the New Critical insistence on the autonomy of literary texts and on the

19、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 soc

20、ial "exchanges" or "negotiations". </p><p>　　New historicism criticism is one of the most important schools of literary criticism in the 20th century, it is popular in Europe and the

21、 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 ki

22、nd of different from the old historicism and formalism criticism of the "new" methods of literary criticism. This paper mainly illustrates the conc</p><p>　　On the theory of new historicism cr

23、iticism 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 practic

24、e 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 resea

25、rched in the social context of the </p><p>　　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 cultur

26、al 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 econ

27、omy, politics, social issues, the new historicism criticism advocating a comprehensive thinking mode, also can be regarded </p><p>　　New historicism criticism will in their own practice and cultural strategy

28、, 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

29、 from post- structuralism like the doctrine of plurality—that a literary work may have different connotations to different people. </p><p>　　The theories that are most close to New Historicism are

30、Marxism, Feminism, and Cultural Materialism in their being skeptical of the formalist view of literature as an autonomous realm of discourse. </p><p>　　David Forgacs, in his "Marxist Literary Theor

31、ies," 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 real

32、ity" (1986: 167). This social reality is "not an indistinct background out of which literature emerges or into which it blends" (1986: 167). </p><p>　　The literary criticism of New H

33、istoricism, 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 litera

34、ry 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 Historic

35、ism. </p><p>　　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

36、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”.&#

37、160;Thus history is not only a reappearance of historical events but also an imaginary construction, which derive</p><p>　　The focuses on the view of literary history within the New Historicism, in which the

38、 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 hi

39、story 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 co<

40、/p><p>　　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 ofte

41、n challenges even subverts the hegemony of traditional ideology in some obscure ways. </p><p>　　The "definite shape" of social reality is "found in history, which Marxists see as a series

42、 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

43、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 &

44、lt;/p><p>　　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

45、 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 n

46、o such thing as a universal human nature that surpasses history: history is a series of "ruptures</p><p>　　Catherine Gallagher explains new historicism as "reading literary and non-literary texts a

47、s 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 effe

48、ct 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 refig</

49、p><p><b>　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　新歷史主義和文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期的文化</p><p><b>　　艾弗瑞姆·多根</b></p><p>　　雖然這種新形式的歷史主義將歷史作為研究的中心主題，以區(qū)別它與“舊”歷史主義。而傳統(tǒng)歷史主義認(rèn)為歷史是“萬(wàn)能”的，而新歷史主義則認(rèn)為

50、是“文學(xué)”，根據(jù)杰弗里·考克斯和拉里·雷諾茲的觀點(diǎn)，新歷史主義與“舊”歷史主義，可以通過(guò)是否缺乏客觀性等來(lái)區(qū)分。 </p><p>　　這種歷史主義的新觀點(diǎn)，也為文學(xué)和批判文學(xué)帶來(lái)了一個(gè)新的視野。傳統(tǒng)文學(xué)歷史主義，認(rèn)為文學(xué)批判的目的，就是試圖重建過(guò)去的客觀性;而新歷史主義認(rèn)為，歷史可以通過(guò)對(duì)應(yīng)時(shí)期文學(xué)作品來(lái)反映，我們對(duì)過(guò)去的理解總是基于我們目前的意識(shí)。路易斯·蒙特羅斯認(rèn)為，對(duì)“文藝復(fù)

51、興時(shí)期的文學(xué)”進(jìn)行批判，這是一種歷史必然。 </p><p>　　我們的分析和理解一定是出于我們自己的歷史，社會(huì)和制度方面的考慮，我們重建的歷史是一種文本化的結(jié)構(gòu) (1989:23)。 </p><p>　　對(duì)蒙特羅斯來(lái)說(shuō)，當(dāng)代歷史主義必須認(rèn)識(shí)到，“不僅是詩(shī)人、評(píng)論家也存在于歷史”，文學(xué)是“歷史的銘文”，此外，“我們的理解、陳述、以及對(duì)過(guò)去的解釋都是偏主觀性的。 </p>&

52、lt;p>　　蒙特羅斯建議，這種批判性實(shí)踐構(gòu)成了 “詩(shī)學(xué)”和“政治”文化的持續(xù)交流(1989:24)。 </p><p>　　按照蒙特羅斯的觀點(diǎn)，全面復(fù)蘇的意義在于不同的出發(fā)點(diǎn)，對(duì)不同的歷史主義也是不同的，老歷史批判法被認(rèn)為是“虛幻的”，因?yàn)樗噲D“恢復(fù)最終或絕對(duì)意義上的真正的、正確的、完整的含義(1989:24)。</p><p>　　新的歷史批判主義實(shí)踐支持文本的本構(gòu)行為，傳統(tǒng)的

53、文學(xué)歷史抹去或沒(méi)有認(rèn)識(shí)到這一模式。它還需要努力分辨目前的歷史和過(guò)去的歷史，并運(yùn)用歷史事實(shí)弄清她們相互之間的辯證關(guān)系。影響現(xiàn)在以及重塑過(guò)去(1989:24 – 25)。 </p><p>　　新歷史主義對(duì)文學(xué)的批判的主要是針對(duì)文學(xué)的具體形式， 排除所有外部的 “文本”考慮因素，隔離和評(píng)估它。新歷史主義的初步問(wèn)題是重新塑造文本之間的關(guān)系和他們的文化體系。就新歷史主義而言 ，文學(xué)文本只能評(píng)估其社會(huì)、歷史和政治背景。因此

54、，新歷史主義放棄作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立審美的形式主義文學(xué)的概念，超越了社會(huì)的需求和利益的范疇。文學(xué)文本不能被認(rèn)為是它產(chǎn)生了社會(huì)，一個(gè)文學(xué)文本是另一種形式的社會(huì)意義，是它產(chǎn)生了社會(huì)，體現(xiàn)了社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀，并且重塑了社會(huì)文化(蒙特羅斯，1989:24)。因此，新歷史主義解釋了文本對(duì)于社會(huì)，對(duì)于社會(huì)文學(xué)的重要作用，它不僅代表了文學(xué)建構(gòu)模式，而且再現(xiàn)了文化結(jié)構(gòu)。 與新的批判主義關(guān)于文學(xué)結(jié)構(gòu)的觀點(diǎn)不同本質(zhì)上看，新歷史主義者相信，脫離文學(xué)所在的周邊社會(huì)環(huán)境，其文學(xué)

55、本身就是沒(méi)有意義的， 因?yàn)檫@樣的文本是復(fù)雜的社會(huì)“交流”或“談判”的產(chǎn)物 (布克,1996)。 </p><p>　　新歷史主義批評(píng)是二十世紀(jì)最重要的文學(xué)批評(píng)流派之一,它流行于二十世紀(jì)八十年代歐美文學(xué)評(píng)論家對(duì)文藝復(fù)興的興趣。這種批評(píng)模式是對(duì)二十世紀(jì)歐美實(shí)證研究以及文本中心研究的反撥，是一種不同于舊歷史主義和形式主義批評(píng)的“新”的文學(xué)批評(píng)方法。本文主要對(duì)新歷史主義批評(píng)的文論觀進(jìn)行闡釋。從艾布拉姆斯提出的“世界、藝術(shù)

56、品、作家、讀者”四要素說(shuō)著手,考察了新歷史主義批評(píng)在文論上的新異之見,探討了這種批評(píng)方法在整個(gè)二十世紀(jì)西方文學(xué)批評(píng)發(fā)展史中所起到的積極作用以及這種理論自身存在的不足之處。 </p><p>　　對(duì)新歷史主義批評(píng)這一理論流派進(jìn)行梳理。在談到這一批評(píng)流派有關(guān)文論方面的論述時(shí),著重指出新歷史主義批評(píng)是一支自下而上的批評(píng)流派,它首先是一種實(shí)踐而不是教條, 新歷史主義批評(píng)模式的最大特點(diǎn)是兼容并包。他們致力于恢復(fù)文學(xué)研究中的

57、歷史因素并主張將文本置于大的社會(huì)語(yǔ)境中加以考察,實(shí)現(xiàn)了二十世紀(jì)文學(xué)研究作家中心-作品中心-讀者中心-社會(huì)中心的轉(zhuǎn)移。它在實(shí)踐中奉行一種新規(guī)則即“文化詩(shī)學(xué)”,將文學(xué)置身于整個(gè)大的文化系統(tǒng)之中,文學(xué)中各要素以全面展開的觸角和整個(gè)文化相互作用并呈現(xiàn)出別具一格的風(fēng)采。接下來(lái)的論述中,從新歷史主義批評(píng)對(duì)四要素的改造入手,分析了新歷史主義批評(píng)獨(dú)樹一幟的作家主體觀。作家在由文本構(gòu)成的社會(huì)生活中甚或是更多的是語(yǔ)言構(gòu)筑的世界中完成自我塑造,再以文本的形式

58、把自我塑造的過(guò)程書寫下來(lái),以此方式完成對(duì)他人的塑造。在新歷史主義批評(píng)的文論中“互文性”這一點(diǎn)非常重要。新歷史主義批評(píng)深受?？?、海登·懷特歷史觀的影響,將文學(xué)和歷史置于同一個(gè)層次,打破了傳統(tǒng)的隸 屬關(guān)系,為文學(xué)研究另辟蹊徑。新歷史主義批評(píng)的文論觀則更加關(guān)注文學(xué)的意識(shí)形態(tài)性,將顛覆與抑制并置,以嶄新的視角切中了問(wèn)題的實(shí)質(zhì)。新歷史主義批評(píng)的宏</p><p>　　認(rèn)為這種批評(píng)流派在某種意義上為西方文學(xué)批評(píng)的發(fā)

59、展開辟了一條新的途徑,它以自身的實(shí)踐,主動(dòng)融入文化研究的海洋,以獨(dú)樹一幟的批評(píng)模式在其中贏得一席之地。它游刃于文化研究與文學(xué)批評(píng)研究之間,由單純的文本研究為主進(jìn)入經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治、社會(huì)問(wèn)題層面的研究,新歷史主義批評(píng)提倡一種綜合思維模式,也可以看作是對(duì)過(guò)于精細(xì)的學(xué)科思維的一種反撥。新歷史主義批評(píng)是從作家中心批評(píng)和文本中心批評(píng)走向多元的文化詩(shī)學(xué)批評(píng)。同時(shí),它在探索的過(guò)程中也同樣存在各種缺陷。首先,主要來(lái)源于批評(píng)內(nèi)部方法論和具體實(shí)踐的矛盾。新歷史主

60、義批評(píng)在實(shí)踐中并沒(méi)有真正形成特色鮮明的批評(píng)方法,它在解釋文學(xué)活動(dòng)中存在的問(wèn)題時(shí),有很多地方無(wú)法擺脫形式主義批評(píng)在方法論上的束縛。其次,新歷史主義批評(píng)傾向于共時(shí)地確定處于“互文”系統(tǒng)中的文本,他們所考察的對(duì)象無(wú)一不是從主觀所需出發(fā),從而忽略了歷時(shí)的考察處于文學(xué)史長(zhǎng)河中的文本演變,造成了時(shí)間和空間上的混亂。再次,新歷史主義批評(píng)有著宏觀的批評(píng)視野,但基于其歷史觀的局限,它對(duì)歷史和文本都缺乏整體的把握。新歷史主義批評(píng)將以自己的批評(píng)實(shí)踐和文化策略

61、,促使我們?cè)谛率兰o(jì)初，做出我們自己的文化反思。 </p><p>　　解構(gòu)新歷史主義是很重要的，但也是一個(gè)與歷史無(wú)關(guān)的方法。然而，從后結(jié)構(gòu)主義的相關(guān)的考度看，它的某些方面則像多元主義的文學(xué)作品，不過(guò)對(duì)于不同的人可能有不同的理解。 </p><p>　　最接近新歷史主義理論的是馬克思主義，女權(quán)主義和文化唯物主義，他們被懷疑，其文學(xué)的形式主義觀點(diǎn)可以作為一個(gè)單獨(dú)的一派。 </p>

62、<p>　　大衛(wèi)·福加斯，在他的“馬克思主義文學(xué)理論”中，提出:無(wú)論馬克思主義理論是如何的多樣性，它最后都是基于一個(gè)假設(shè)，即“通過(guò)文學(xué)才能正確地理解社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的框架”(1986:167)。這個(gè)社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)不是一個(gè)模糊的文學(xué)混合(1986:167)。 </p><p>　　新歷史主義文學(xué)批評(píng)，這種批評(píng)模式是一種不同于傳統(tǒng)歷史主義和形式主義的“新”的文學(xué)批評(píng)理論。這種理論對(duì)中國(guó)有關(guān)“重寫文學(xué)史”的討論

63、，以及新歷史主義小說(shuō)的創(chuàng)作都產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)的影響。本文主要就新歷史主義的文學(xué)史觀進(jìn)行闡釋。以期對(duì) 21 世紀(jì)中國(guó)文學(xué)史研究，以及文學(xué)史的編寫有所裨益。 </p><p>　　以?？碌臍v史觀，海登?懷特的歷史理論，蒙特魯斯關(guān)于文本的歷史性和歷史的文本性理論作為立論基礎(chǔ)，主要分析了新歷史主義的歷史觀。重點(diǎn)指出了在新歷史主義理論的觀點(diǎn)下，歷史并不是一種客觀的存在，而是一種取決于撰述者的立場(chǎng)“歷史敘述”或“歷史修撰”，一種修

64、辭的靈活運(yùn)用，一種語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)的敘事構(gòu)型。這樣，歷史就不僅僅是客觀事件忠實(shí)面貌的再現(xiàn)，它還是一種在一定的觀念指導(dǎo)下的想象性建構(gòu)。其中最為關(guān)鍵的變化就是凸現(xiàn)了“歷史”的“文本性”。歷史就從“唯一的故事”變成了“某一個(gè)故事”，原先那種大寫的歷史被無(wú)數(shù)小寫的歷史所代替。 </p><p>　　論述了新歷史主義文學(xué)史觀。在新歷史主義歷史觀的基礎(chǔ)上，文學(xué)與歷史的關(guān)系發(fā)生了根本變化。文學(xué)不再是反映歷史的客觀實(shí)體，歷史也不僅僅是文

65、學(xué)的“背景”，文學(xué)作為歷史和意識(shí)形態(tài)的結(jié)合部，二者之間是一種互動(dòng)的，相互影響、相互塑造的關(guān)系。新歷史主義的文學(xué)史觀則注重文學(xué)史的意識(shí)形態(tài)性。認(rèn)為，文學(xué)對(duì)意識(shí)形態(tài)的功能不是單一的，而是多元的，既有鞏固，也有“顛覆”與對(duì)顛覆的“抑制”。一方面文學(xué)在社會(huì)權(quán)力網(wǎng)絡(luò)中被生產(chǎn)出來(lái)，要求人們遵守某種權(quán)力，安于現(xiàn)存秩序，成為現(xiàn)實(shí)合法性的認(rèn)同者;另一方面，文學(xué)又往往以各種隱晦的方式質(zhì)疑、挑戰(zhàn)甚至顛覆主導(dǎo)意識(shí)形態(tài)的霸權(quán)。文學(xué)史是文化系統(tǒng)整體性的話語(yǔ)想象，文

66、學(xué)史應(yīng)該從社會(huì)--文化批評(píng)的角度來(lái)審視作品是如何生成的，考察文學(xué)作品的話語(yǔ)特征、歷史淵源、生成機(jī)制、存在方式、辨析和清理出它與政治意識(shí)形態(tài)復(fù)雜的深層關(guān)系，以及權(quán)力話語(yǔ)在文學(xué)史研究及寫作中的重要意義。 </p><p>　　接著探討新歷史主義文學(xué)史理論的實(shí)踐意義。選擇美國(guó)文學(xué)史上著名的，同時(shí)頗富爭(zhēng)議的作家諾曼?梅勒作為個(gè)案分析，通過(guò)分析，可以看到在梅勒小說(shuō)中歷史不是客觀發(fā)生的事，而是充滿了主觀性的歷史，從而達(dá)到對(duì)歷

67、史有目的的干擾，因而梅勒小說(shuō)中歷史就具有了文本化特征。梅勒則運(yùn)用作家不在場(chǎng)的零度寫作的方式，給讀者一個(gè)貌似客觀的印象。事實(shí)上，梅勒是借助吉爾莫這一崇尚暴力與極端個(gè)人主義的嬉皮士形象的塑造，傳達(dá)他一直以來(lái)試圖通過(guò)小說(shuō)創(chuàng)作來(lái)干涉社會(huì)生活的意圖，傳達(dá)他對(duì)主流文化的反叛精神，并力圖 達(dá)到通過(guò)小說(shuō)創(chuàng)作在“意識(shí)形態(tài)中引起一場(chǎng)革命”的目的。梅勒則最終借自己的創(chuàng)作完成一個(gè)成為美國(guó)偉大作家的理想，從而在美國(guó)文學(xué)史上留下叛逆者的聲音。 </p>

68、<p>　　社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的“固有形狀”是“是歷史性的，馬克思主義將之稱為一系列敵對(duì)的社會(huì)階級(jí)之間的斗爭(zhēng)和他們參與的經(jīng)濟(jì)生產(chǎn)的類型”。加拉格爾指出，“馬克思主義和新歷史主義的一個(gè)主要區(qū)別在于新歷史主義不像馬克思主義那樣強(qiáng)迫達(dá)到一致性。她甚至可能堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，歷史方面的問(wèn)題可以獨(dú)立地發(fā)展成為政治問(wèn)題”。 </p><p>　　新歷史主義文學(xué)，是社會(huì)和文化的產(chǎn)物，它不止由一個(gè)意識(shí)形成，而是多種意識(shí)所共同作用形成的

69、結(jié)果，并且不能減少其中的任意一個(gè)意識(shí)。因此，分析的最佳方式是通過(guò)研究它的起源文化。文學(xué)是一種特定的歷史，而不是一種截然不同的人類活動(dòng)。本身就是一個(gè)完整的社會(huì)建構(gòu)，不存在普遍的人性，可以超越歷史，歷史是一系列的不同年齡的人，不同事情的組成的。因此，沒(méi)有人可以超越自己的文化形態(tài)，自己的意識(shí)形態(tài)教育，就是為了理解過(guò)去，歷史記錄的是過(guò)去的事情。因此，對(duì)于現(xiàn)代讀者來(lái)說(shuō)，不可能通過(guò)欣賞文學(xué)作品，來(lái)分析同時(shí)代的人和事，它反映是過(guò)去的事情。因此，文學(xué)批

70、判的最好的方法是以文學(xué)文本為基礎(chǔ)并通過(guò)研究不同地區(qū)的文化因素，嘗試重建“意識(shí)形態(tài)”。 </p><p>　　新歷史主義的最初的努力，就是重置文學(xué)文本，通過(guò)分析其他形式的藝術(shù)如繪畫、雕塑、音樂(lè)等等。然而，歷史并不被視為文學(xué)的來(lái)源。歷史和文學(xué)之間的關(guān)系是一個(gè)辯證的關(guān)系，文學(xué)文本被解讀為一個(gè)產(chǎn)品和生產(chǎn)者，它是歷史的起源。斯蒂芬·格林布拉特解釋了新歷史主義，認(rèn)為新歷史主義就是努力建立一個(gè)關(guān)系，將不同的分散的任何

71、事件整合起來(lái)，這些分散的事件，可以來(lái)源于官方文件、私人文件、剪報(bào)等等。因此，文學(xué)文本的情節(jié)是無(wú)法復(fù)原的 ，文學(xué)評(píng)論家的應(yīng)該關(guān)注恢復(fù)文本的意識(shí)形態(tài)，并反過(guò)來(lái)也要幫助文本內(nèi)在中的文化。 凱瑟琳·加拉格爾將新歷史主義解釋為“文學(xué)讀本和非文學(xué)文本的歷史話語(yǔ)文本”。 此外，加拉格爾提出，新歷史主義的實(shí)踐者“通常假定文本之間沒(méi)有明顯層次的因果關(guān)系”。路易蒙特羅斯聲稱，這種新的文學(xué)批判的重點(diǎn)是試圖重新塑造規(guī)范的社會(huì)文化。 </p>