بررسی تحلیلی نقد نو تاریخ‌گرایی

History and literature have been in a dialectical relationship for a long time, and the study of literary and critical works shows simultaneous developments in these two phenomena. Which one is the cause of change in the other is not very important in this discussion, but what is very important for us is the dual relationship that has always existed between them. History and literature, which are presented in a more detailed form in the history of literature, function in shaping each other or providing a report of each other, and this is important in the past in a traditional way and in the contemporary period in a new way, and in this The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the relationship between history and literature and an introduction to traditional historical criticism, and discuss the category of modern historicism in criticism or neo-historical criticism.
The result of the discussion shows that in the new reading of historicist criticism, literature and literary text in providing historical report is not only dependent on history and historical texts, but it can also use multi-voice and multi-dimensional structure and artistic techniques. To provide the audience with a clear picture of the current and past events, something that history generally considers its right to do. 
Introduction:
History and literature, which intersect more specifically within the realm of the history of literature, act in a way to shape each other and also to narrate the story of one another. Traditionally, this relationship was seen in a straightforward way, but in contemporary discourse, it has evolved into a renewed dimension. This paper aims to explore the relationship between history and literature. After providing an introduction to traditional historical criticism, we will discuss New Historicism in criticism. Over the course of history, literature and art have been formed. Accepting the view that the identity of all events is shaped within the framework of history and that it is history that nurtures this identity, one can also say that literature is a result of history. Literature develops within history and evolves alongside it. This flourishing never truly stops, since history, which is a manifestation of time, is always moving forward, carrying everything within.
Materials and Methods:
In this paper, we examine New Historicism with a critical approach and by using the existing studies in Persian. We use a descriptive-analytical method while focusing on the mutual role of history and literature in advancing the objectives of one another.
Results and Discussion:
Humans are both the creators of history and the products of it. Nature, however, exists as a world beyond humans and their history—so much so that one might say that human beings and their history are a subset of nature. Art and history can seemingly also be regarded as phenomena within the context of nature, interconnected in a relationship that may be convergent or divergent. Based on Derrida’s terminology, Aristotle established a “binary opposition” between history and literature, in which he favored literature over history. The reason is that while history always reports on what has already happened, literature, in contrast, directs readers’ attention to what may yet unfold by revealing the hidden mechanisms within the deeper layers of society.
Historicism is defined by several characteristics. One of the most important characteristics is that it insists on putting all systems of thought, phenomena, situations, states, arts, and literary texts within a historical framework. That is to say, a text or a phenomenon cannot be analyzed independently from its historical progression, since they are, both in form and content, deeply bound to the specific time, place, and historical conditions. With this approach, by “historical criticism” we mean a methodological perspective within the discipline of history, which can be categorized into two parts: external criticism and internal criticism. External criticism examines a text based on its external relations and the influences it receives from elements outside the context, while internal criticism typically examines a text in relation to intra-textual elements.
On the other hand, we come across both traditional and modern historical criticism. Traditional historical criticism believes that for a reader to understand, appreciate, and evaluate a text from previous centuries, it is essential to be familiar with the situations, beliefs, worldviews, artistic approaches, and customs of the era in which the work was created. Therefore, in order to grasp the full concept, readers must be able to place themselves in that era, understand the author’s intentions, and view the work as it would have been perceived by the audience of its own era. However, in modern historical criticism, the primary focus is on revealing the relationship between power and social and ideological constructions of each element within a text. It constantly considers the relations based on power as the central element within various contexts. Clearly, the role of power discourse in shaping texts, particularly literary ones, is undeniable.
According to critics following New Historicism theory, literary texts, contrary to what literary historians believed, do not demonstrate the author’s intentions nor the spirit of the era in which the texts were created. Unlike what followers of New Criticism believe, literary texts are not self-contained art objects that go beyond the time and place of their creation, but cultural products that can reveal insights about the mutual influence of discourses and the network of social meanings, which have had a role in the language, time, and place in which they were written. We should notice that many New Historicists and cultural materialists not only base their analysis of literary texts on a power framework but also view these texts as deeply involved with social and political forms, each trying to assert power and overcome the other.
Despite the fact that parts of history are being transformed into literature or literary works and their processes are considered as historical phenomena, there is actually a contrast between historical and literary statements. This contrast primarily exists between the dogmatic, monophonic nature of historical accounts and the interpretive, polyphonic nature of literary works. Like all achievements in the field of the Humanities, New Historicism is subject to criticism. Otherwise, if ignored, there would be the risk of falling into one-sidedness as before. Thus, it is essential to examine this field from the point of view of modernization theory and the functions of systems. Another issue that has an impact on New Historicist Criticism is Structuralism. As is well known, one of the components of structuralism is its approach to history. Structuralism believes in gaps rather than evolution in history, suggesting that historical periods are not sequential, nor is there a cause-and-effect relationship between them. Structuralists challenge and question the concept of historical progression and development.
Conclusion:
Historical texts have always played a crucial role in literary criticism’s final analyses. Although, in traditional criticism, history is the dominant force, with criticism bound to follow the frameworks and guidelines established by historical texts. In modern criticism, by contrast, history itself and even historical accounts become subject to critique, without being forced to confirm all written historical narratives. New Historicist Criticism is not a superficial or extensive trend, but the product of a scholarly tradition that has evolved from traditional methods, trying to expand knowledge in the field of the Humanities and Arts. While New Historicism offers an opportunity to reinterpret many literary and historical texts, it is not without limitations, one of which is the radical approach to new interpretations. That is why New Historicism itself requires a critical framework to evaluate and refine its methodologies.