What do you think?
Rate this book
Practicing New Historicism
For almost twenty years, new historicism has been a highly controversial and influential force in literary and cultural studies. In Practicing the New Historicism, two of its most distinguished practitioners reflect on its surprisingly disparate sources and far-reaching effects.
In lucid and jargon-free prose, Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt focus on five central aspects of new recurrent use of anecdotes, preoccupation with the nature of representations, fascination with the history of the body, sharp focus on neglected details, and skeptical analysis of ideology. Arguing that new historicism has always been more a passionately engaged practice of questioning and analysis than an abstract theory, Gallagher and Greenblatt demonstrate this practice in a series of characteristically dazzling readings of works ranging from paintings by Joos van Gent and Paolo Uccello to Hamlet and Great Expectations.
By juxtaposing analyses of Renaissance and nineteenth-century topics, the authors uncover a number of unexpected contrasts and connections between the two periods. Are aspects of the dispute over the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist detectable in British political economists' hostility to the potato? How does Pip's isolation in Great Expectations shed light on Hamlet's doubt?
Offering not only an insider's view of new historicism, but also a lively dialogue between a Renaissance scholar and a Victorianist, Practicing the New Historicism is an illuminating and unpredictable performance by two of America's most respected literary scholars.
"Gallagher and Greenblatt offer a brilliant introduction to new historicism. In their hands, difficult ideas become coherent and accessible."— Choice
"A tour de force of new literary criticism. . . . Gallagher and Greenblatt's virtuoso readings of paintings, potatoes (yes, spuds), religious ritual, and novels—all 'texts'—as well as essays on criticism and the significance of anecdotes, are likely to take their place as model examples of the qualities of the new critical school that they lead. . . . A zesty work for those already initiated into the incestuous world of contemporary literary criticism-and for those who might like to see what all the fuss is about."— Kirkus Reviews , starred review
In lucid and jargon-free prose, Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt focus on five central aspects of new recurrent use of anecdotes, preoccupation with the nature of representations, fascination with the history of the body, sharp focus on neglected details, and skeptical analysis of ideology. Arguing that new historicism has always been more a passionately engaged practice of questioning and analysis than an abstract theory, Gallagher and Greenblatt demonstrate this practice in a series of characteristically dazzling readings of works ranging from paintings by Joos van Gent and Paolo Uccello to Hamlet and Great Expectations.
By juxtaposing analyses of Renaissance and nineteenth-century topics, the authors uncover a number of unexpected contrasts and connections between the two periods. Are aspects of the dispute over the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist detectable in British political economists' hostility to the potato? How does Pip's isolation in Great Expectations shed light on Hamlet's doubt?
Offering not only an insider's view of new historicism, but also a lively dialogue between a Renaissance scholar and a Victorianist, Practicing the New Historicism is an illuminating and unpredictable performance by two of America's most respected literary scholars.
"Gallagher and Greenblatt offer a brilliant introduction to new historicism. In their hands, difficult ideas become coherent and accessible."— Choice
"A tour de force of new literary criticism. . . . Gallagher and Greenblatt's virtuoso readings of paintings, potatoes (yes, spuds), religious ritual, and novels—all 'texts'—as well as essays on criticism and the significance of anecdotes, are likely to take their place as model examples of the qualities of the new critical school that they lead. . . . A zesty work for those already initiated into the incestuous world of contemporary literary criticism-and for those who might like to see what all the fuss is about."— Kirkus Reviews , starred review
259 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2000
14 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Catherine Gallagher
17 books2 followersCatherine Gallagher is an American historicist literary critic and Victorianist, and Professor Emerita of English at UC Berkeley. She has authored influential works including Nobody’s Story, The Body Economic, and Telling It Like It Wasn’t. Gallagher has received the Berlin Prize Fellowship, the Jacques Barzun Prize, and was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2020.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Read
February 8, 2022i'm not reading the last chapter... sorry gallagher. but i'm counting this as read because 5/6 chapters is good enough and who's gonna stop me???
Read
February 8, 2022No rating because jumped around a lot in this book and understood about 20% of it.. reading Gallagher’s chapters felt like reading a foreign language at times, which is a little disheartening considering I’m going to be reading a ton of stuff like this in grad school 🧍🏻♀️
February 21, 2019
Though interesting, this book didn't provide the wow feeling I almost always get with Greenblatt. Maybe as a practicing new historicist/culture materialist these are not new thoughts for me. But it was an enjoyable read about a couple of paintings, the potato, the Bible, some Hamlet and Great Expectations.
May 12, 2013
The introduction and first two chapters are stunningly good.
Read
February 16, 2020skriv eg eigentleg eit essay med mindre eg bytter problemstilling sånn fire gongar?
October 2, 2016
Rather succinct, accessible & seemingly exhaustive, it is a very interesting introduction to the field that I would recommend to anybody interested in Literary Criticism, even if, like me, you didn't agree with all the founding principles of their doctrine, which are well described, at length, in the introduction and the first chapter. The main precepts are, if I understood correctly :
-Literary works are not to be treated as autonomous objects but constitute a network subjected to social, cultural and political forces. Basically, the Western Canon wasn't created ex nihilo , writers are a product of their sociocultural environment and work under a set of assumptions that are inherent to the spirit of the times, the 'zeitgeist'.
Difficult to completely refute that, I'd say. This also debunks the idea of 'isolated genius'
-Do away with the dichotomy Literature vs. Non-fiction. Porosity between the two realms, historical can be extracted from literature and non-fiction can have literary value.
I feel this is only partially true but the approach certainly yields interesting results.
-A consequence of that is that 'sub-literary texts' or uninspired non-literary texts are put side by side with 'the great works of literature'.
This, I think, is pure suspension of belief.
Any effort to challenge the Canon and dig out long-lost literary works is commendable obviously. They seek to dig out minor works that have been hitherto ignored or denigrated and claim they are interesting in and of themselves.
-They have a fascination for the oddity, the anecdote, the singular. In a way, their work is largely microanalysis insofar as they argue they can derive significant information from detail, into a larger whole. "Confidence that in any random fragment plucked from the course of a life at any time the totality of its fate is contained and can be portrayed" (Auerbach, who is not a New Historicist by any means but whom the NH took inspiration from).
After the initial introductory chapters, they give detailed examples of their studies and I must say it was really interesting and removed most of my skepticism.
Notably, the chapter 'The Potato in the Materialistic Imagination' is worth a read independently of the rest of the book, I highly recommend it. Very informative, very clear in explaining, for instance, the 19th century English contempt for the Irish 'potato-eaters', how body and potato are intertwined in the view of the time, opposition to the Host of the Eucharist and so on and so forth. I didn't know much of the background and it was most engrossing.
-Literary works are not to be treated as autonomous objects but constitute a network subjected to social, cultural and political forces. Basically, the Western Canon wasn't created ex nihilo , writers are a product of their sociocultural environment and work under a set of assumptions that are inherent to the spirit of the times, the 'zeitgeist'.
Difficult to completely refute that, I'd say. This also debunks the idea of 'isolated genius'
-Do away with the dichotomy Literature vs. Non-fiction. Porosity between the two realms, historical can be extracted from literature and non-fiction can have literary value.
I feel this is only partially true but the approach certainly yields interesting results.
-A consequence of that is that 'sub-literary texts' or uninspired non-literary texts are put side by side with 'the great works of literature'.
This, I think, is pure suspension of belief.
Any effort to challenge the Canon and dig out long-lost literary works is commendable obviously. They seek to dig out minor works that have been hitherto ignored or denigrated and claim they are interesting in and of themselves.
-They have a fascination for the oddity, the anecdote, the singular. In a way, their work is largely microanalysis insofar as they argue they can derive significant information from detail, into a larger whole. "Confidence that in any random fragment plucked from the course of a life at any time the totality of its fate is contained and can be portrayed" (Auerbach, who is not a New Historicist by any means but whom the NH took inspiration from).
After the initial introductory chapters, they give detailed examples of their studies and I must say it was really interesting and removed most of my skepticism.
Notably, the chapter 'The Potato in the Materialistic Imagination' is worth a read independently of the rest of the book, I highly recommend it. Very informative, very clear in explaining, for instance, the 19th century English contempt for the Irish 'potato-eaters', how body and potato are intertwined in the view of the time, opposition to the Host of the Eucharist and so on and so forth. I didn't know much of the background and it was most engrossing.
October 16, 2025
Just … thank you for changing my perceptions on seeing the past — through the archives, etc; and the literary works. And for accompanying me through the entire research process, a memorable semester. I swear that Greenblatt wrote various good literary criticism, and they are all worth-reading.
Anyway, I found a v interesting Yale Course talking bout this as well on YouTube. You should check it out.
Anyway, I found a v interesting Yale Course talking bout this as well on YouTube. You should check it out.
September 13, 2018
Why was this book so hard to read? I feel like I’m generally pretty good at handling even dense theoreticians, so why did I have such a SLOW time reading this? I must admit that I was hoping for more words on the application of New Historicism rather than examples of it in action. Loved the potatoes though.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews