Louis Montrose opens his article, New Historicisms, by rejecting the practice of treating New Historicism as a fixed and homogeneous discourse because it is a poor representation of the discourse’s purpose, which is to examine a piece of work as something mutable or heterogenous. New Historicism attempts to connect the text with the world, particularly in its relationship with history. New Historicism is a revival of the relationship between Literature and cultural studies. It is a reaction against poststructuralism/deconstructionism, that only studies the letter of the text and sets the work apart from social influences such as history. By alluding to the importance of history, New Historicism believes that readers are always living in history
…show more content…
In Traub’s article, she rejects the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries’ practice of separating discourses, namely science and literature, because she believes literary text can help explain scientific texts with its self-reflexive nature. She criticizes scholars who identify the use of scientific language such as anatomy and cartography in their interpretation of King Lear but do not explain its purpose and the relationship between science and King Lear. Traub attempts to create a “form of historical epistemology” (Traub 45) through the study of cultural concepts. She takes on a New Historicism approach to find the purpose of anatomical and cartographical references in King Lear by examining the concept of nature in Medieval era and the Seventeenth Century concept of norm. Traub draws a connection between the division of kingdom and the state of the characters in King Lear with the literal dissection of body parts and the universalizing of human representation to figures on a …show more content…
Traub explains that the Seventeenth Century was a time of voyage expansion and maps were in high demand. Universalizing of map and anatomical diagrams were common methods of depicting their subject matters because they place a greater focus on the exterior representation to create a common land or body. Cartography parallels Poor Tom’s character in the unfamiliar land Lear created from the division of his kingdom and helps explain King Lear’s representation of humankind. From a cartographical perspective, Poor Tom is not just Edgar’s disguise but an abstract representation of the common human nature in King Lear. When Lear sees Poor Tom and calls him an “unaccommodated man” (3.4.95), he compares Poor Tom’s exposed and battered body to the general human condition in the
In Traub’s article, she rejects the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries’ practice of separating discourses, namely science and literature, because she believes literary text can help explain scientific texts with its self-reflexive nature. She criticizes scholars who identify the use of scientific language such as anatomy and cartography in their interpretation of King Lear but do not explain its purpose and the relationship between science and King Lear. Traub attempts to create a “form of historical epistemology” (Traub 45) through the study of cultural concepts. She takes on a New Historicism approach to find the purpose of anatomical and cartographical references in King Lear by examining the concept of nature in Medieval era and the Seventeenth Century concept of norm. Traub draws a connection between the division of kingdom and the state of the characters in King Lear with the literal dissection of body parts and the universalizing of human representation to figures on a …show more content…
Traub explains that the Seventeenth Century was a time of voyage expansion and maps were in high demand. Universalizing of map and anatomical diagrams were common methods of depicting their subject matters because they place a greater focus on the exterior representation to create a common land or body. Cartography parallels Poor Tom’s character in the unfamiliar land Lear created from the division of his kingdom and helps explain King Lear’s representation of humankind. From a cartographical perspective, Poor Tom is not just Edgar’s disguise but an abstract representation of the common human nature in King Lear. When Lear sees Poor Tom and calls him an “unaccommodated man” (3.4.95), he compares Poor Tom’s exposed and battered body to the general human condition in the