Britannica Sources used in this answer

How did New Criticism differ from historical criticism?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Antique book open to the frontispiece of The Iliad of Homer, showing the title and an engraved portrait of a bearded man, with old books in the background. — literature *The Iliad*, an epic of the Trojan War attributed to the ancient Greek poet Homer, is considered a foundational work of Western literature.

The primary difference between New Criticism and historical criticism lies in their approach to the text and the relevance of external context.

Historical criticism interprets a literary work by examining the historical and social circumstances of its creation, including facts about the author’s life and the era in which it was written. It relies on historical evidence to provide insight into the meaning of the work.1

In contrast, New Criticism is a formalist approach that treats the individual work of art as an independent unit of meaning. It rejects the practice of using biographical or historical data to interpret literature, arguing instead for the intrinsic value of the text itself. The hallmark of this movement is "close reading," which focuses intensely on the internal elements of the work—such as language, tone, imagery, and verbal patterns—rather than outside influences. New Critics famously challenged the relevance of authorial intent, notably in the concept of the "intentional fallacy," which questions the value of searching for an author's purpose when analyzing a text.234