Why Seventeenth Century Studies?

"Why seventeenth century studies?" the question haunts our mind, we assume that it should be kept under the same rubric renaissance/early modern studies. But, It was very essential to develop a separate category under this title because of the biased attitudes of renaissance.

Renaissance became never conscious about puritan and metaphysical poets such as Milton, Johnson, Donne, Herbert, Spenser and Marvell. These poets were long been neglected by renaissance scholars, and scholars of this bent of studies are reawakening them.

The systematic study of seventeenth century is more important because of the change occurred in the face of  American literary criticism.

The important question is; How does change occur in American Iiterary criticism and how does modern literary theory begin in the United States?

Historically, America was different than that of Europe. It was under the colonial pressure but it never became colonizer in its history rather the true fact about this nation is that it was and it is a greater industrial power.

Though it has its own literary history but before theWorld  War, it could not develop any theory industry, which  could compete with European theory industry.

In the 1960s some of the American institutes started reading structuralism. It was the first import of the theory industry in America. Structuralism was popular in America; it created much stir and excitement. Along with that, there was much confusion over what structuralism was and what it meant. It created many "cliches" in intellectual circle. Jonathan Culler and Robert Scholes produced their handbooks and they were cautious about the causes of its failure and they listed the causes as follows:

  • Emphasis on the synchronic and the communal
  • Preoccupation with binaries
  • Weakness in dealing with historical process

Because of these weaknesses American institutes were waiting for another brand of criticism, it was made possible by the revolutionary critique of western metaphysics; Jacques Derrida at John Hopkins in 1966. He attacked the metaphysical dichotomies presented in the structure of structuralism, and post-structuralism or cleconstructive mode of theory came in the American scene. Again there was same confusion about deconstruction too as what it was and what it meant; cliches and jargons about new movement begon to, circulate but the intellectuals could not understand the new brand clearly. Again Culler and Scholes were worried about the failings of the new movement. They listed the causes as follows: Its weakness in dealing with historical process Relation with older creeds, such as psychoanalysis. The blind follower of Nietzschean - Heicdeggerian attack on metaphysics, by keeping the patronage with Nietzschean-Heideggerian concept, deconstruction attacked upon truth and logic in the name of rhetoric. The theory carried Jargons and Cliches and left the sediments in contemporary literary discourse.

After failing both structuralism and deconstruction in American academics, America was in need of a new brand of theory and "new historicism" fulfilled the demand. Early in the 1 980s, new historicism started functioning in American academics especially through the effort of Stephen Greenbelt and other west coast renaissance scholars. New historicism blended the study of literature with study of culture. New historicism, the name itself suggests that it is the common resistance to structuralism-and post modernism. It made people to come in touch-with historical process; it revived the interpretation of literary text by referring to the historical process, social context and economic condition. The new historicism is not really a methodology but a contentious (controversial) description of western culture. A "new academic left which was very unhappy with American democratic model and its utopian concept conducted this movement. The new hi storicism oscillates between Foucault's concepts of ubiquitous (seeming to be everywhere) repressive power and some of interested Marxists: One of the achievements of this oscillation is the development of peculiarly unsuspicious attitude toward the pretensions of absolute monarchy. Instead of finding new historical data it continued  on reinterpreting  the discoveries of old historicism.  Many scholars have thought that new historicism would exclude the sins of structuralism and postmodernism but it continued to show similar attitudes of  these earlier unsuccessful theories, not- only that it started  keeping bizarre liaisons with some dubious authorizes of structuralism or poststructuralist, such as Lacan. The new historicism could not grasp any revolutionary idea and it became flat and feeble.

So different critical shifts have been occurred in American literary theory industries, the change occurred in structuralism, post structuralism, deconstruction and new historicism these changes are responsible to change the tradition of American literary criticism and that made the change in the face of seventeenth century studies too.

These new alterations brought following conventions.

The distinctions between centres-origins with margin-marginality are treated as unnecessary. To Claim "proper interpretation" or to discuss "literature as proper" is a practice under attack. They treated closure as ominous and boundaries are harmful for innovative critical development.

 Again, other groups of scholars were trying to change the model of literary criticism. One among that group is renaissance scholars; though they were trying to be innovative but renaissance scholars did nothing more than renewing and preserving the traditions of early modern humanism. But, the obstacles in recurrent development is "liberal humanism", this theory tends to push us back towards the line of Montague, Erasmus, Bacon, Hooker, Herbert, Marvell and Milton i.e. towards the brand of traditional humanism. Liberal humanists were squeezed between the academic lefts and straussian right. So they could do nothing more in theory industry.

The followers of Heideggenan-Nietzschean anti-metaphysical model and predomination of "death of the god'' brought about a new mode of criticism. Anti-metaphysical speculation trapped in debate as some critics argues that this speculation is nothing more than political and moral attacks. If we interpret from psychoanalytical perspective, these models of criticism suffered from a shallow engagement with the dynamics of generational transmission. The death of the parental gods has been announced but in fact they were still alive that is to put the issue more conventionally there is still the lineage of older and traditional concepts with these so called innovative theories so they could not bring a tremendous change in the face of seventeenth century studies.