For my money, many literary efforts at contextualization don't seem very
historical, and some seem rather trans- or anti-historical, when relying on
sweeping and impressionistic comparisons of superficially similar items of
discourse at widely separated points in time and place. Such efforts differ
from strictly text-focused methods ("new criticism", some varieties of
deconstruction), but can play fast and loose with historical contexts as
historians would understand that. (Of course, many or most literary analysts
wouldn't claim to be doing history. But the decline of their former positive
horror at the thought raises potential problems. )
But then, that's a sweeping, impressionistic statement. Anyone care to
disabuse me of my ignorant prejudices?
An example comes separately.