Historicism after Historicism

Whatever kind of critical practice “post-historicism” turns out to be, one thing about it is certain: it too will be supplanted in its time, just as historic ism seems now to be ebbing slowly away. Such moments of supplantation and loss often provide the best perspective on what is valuable about a mode of thought or a theoretical perspective; once the most basic assumptions of a mode or theory have been called into question, it is easier to see what it offered in the first place. Historic ism is no exception. My essay focuses on the relationship of historical thought to literary form as a way of assessing what aspects of historicist discourse and practice remain critically energetic and analytically central to medieval literary study. It is not a critique. Instead, I seek to explore the kinds of challenges that confront any kind of historical thought, particularly in relation to literary art. It should not be forgotten that early historicist work took chances by insisting on the heterogeneity, variability, and sheer diversity of the Middle Ages—an insistence that is central to every revisionary account of medieval texts and practices, even those explicitly opposed to historicism. 1 Whatever the faults of the latter, history—in all of its shapes, discourses, forms, and styles—remains a central critical category for literary medievalists. History cannot be ignored, suppressed, or avoided. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.