A Look at the Debates on Neo-Historicism

Abstract

If we look at the discussions of neo-historicism, in a sense, the relationship between literature and history is a thing in front of us, and for centuries literature has been seen and read as part of human history, that is, just as political and social history is part of human history, so literature is also part of human history. But despite all this, literature is a mirror of history and it is not, the pulse of history is visible and not visible in literature. The relationship between literature and history is simple, direct and two-by-two, and for some it is so complex and deep that literature is seen as the interpreter of history and it is not, or literature represents the spirit of the age and it is not. Therefore, for centuries, there have been two critical attitudes about the relationship between literature and history, which are both contradictory and contradictory. First, literature is a product of history and the correct and appropriate study of literature is that which is done with a historical and social perspective. Secondly, the literary text is an organic whole, it is free and autonomous, and literary study should not be conducted independently with the help of literary principles, but rather with the help of external, historical (socio-political) principles.

Key Words: Neo-historicism, literature and history, critical attitudes, socio-political, social perspective.