| As an influential and outstanding literary critic, Geoffrey Hartman had been working in English and Comparative Literature Department of Yale University for about fifty years. In 1981, he became the Project Director and Co-Founder of the Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies at Yale University. Though Contents of Hartman's literary critical theory consist of literature, religion, philosophy, linguistics, politics etc., We can still discover the clue behind his theory dividing into two parts. The first is the revaluation of Romantic Literature which happened in late 1950s.The second is the study and criticism about the outlook of contemporary literary critical theory. The two theoretical clues were both created on account of resistance to the authoritative theories in that time. Though the deconstructionism mode of interpretation and the deconstructionism way of thinking affect his academic research, the deconstruction theory can't draw a frame around his literary critical thought. His criticism about literature and literary criticism is along with the contemporary issues of literary theory in order to interpret an issue comprehensively using so many different methods. In his literary critical thought, it is very difficult to find a distinct logical thread of his thought and build a magnificent theoretical system. The Dissertation mainly goes deep into Hartman's literary critical thought to interpret its contents along the two parts of the clue. At the same time, to concentrate on his special life experiences and academic experiences and to analyze the relationship between his literary critical thought and other criticism theories are the significance of the dissertation in order that I would like to make an overall perspective for Hartman's academic career and inquire into the theoretical value of his literary critical thought.The Dissertation mainly includes sever parts. The introduction makes a simple explanation on the choice of the topic, target scope and literature review. It also gives an introduction of the general idea and structural arrangement of the Dissertation.Chapter One mainly introduce Geoffrey Hartman's life experiences and academic experiences. The first part shows a detailed description of his historical accidents and academic experiences, making an introduction to Geoffrey Hartman in the perceptual and life perspective. As a little child escaping from Nazi's shadiness, then when Hartman was forced to exile abroad, from England to America, he decided to be an real poet and began to contact with the literature.The second part demonstrates Hartman's academic books and his theoretical thoughts. According to the development of his theoretical thoughts, this part introduces some of the most important books which stirred up other theorists the attention. First of all, for Hartman, the revaluation of Romantic Literature is one of the most important parts in his literary critical theory. Secondly, it introduces and interprets the criticism on literary criticism. Thirdly, Hartman pays close attention to Jewish culture, religion and Holocaust. At last, Hartman discussed the modern cultural study in several articles.Chapter Two generally introduces two important concepts Yale school and deconstructionism. Beside these, making an analysis is necessary to find out the relationship and argument about Geoffrey Hartman, Yale school, Derrida and deconstructionism happened in 20th century. Finding the main reasons must start from the three points:historical and social conditions, Nietzsche's anti-rational thoughts and structuralism. As a deconstruction philosopher, Derrida converted to subverting structuralism, even the whole western metaphysics at the right moment. From that time on, he changed his interest in phenomenology, whose deconstruction theory had a significant impact in all areas of culture. The second part discusses the relationship between Derrida and Yale School. At first, most of scholars made a general designation for Bloom, Miller, de Man and Hartman called Yale School because they were all teaching at Yale University. Though their literary interpretation mode and their way of thinking are almost the same, they can't be classified simply. The third part compares the theoretical viewpoints of the Yale critics. They maintained a close contact on both academic intercourse and daily life, as they were the most famous scholars who supported and broadcasted deconstruction theory in America. Firstly, Martin Buber had an effect upon Hartman and Bloom, suggesting that the research fellows should attach importance to the relationship between human beings and objects or human relationship. Hartman and Bloom agreed with Martin Buber's perspective in regard to the relationship which is not "I-It" but "I-You". Bloom applied this perspective not only explain the relationship between esthetic subject and esthetic object, but also solve religious problems. Moreover, Hartman applied the perspective to interpret the relationship between human and nature. Secondly, Hartman and Bloom paid much more attention to Romantic poem and they were in accordance with the topic of anxiety of influence. Hartman indicated that contemporary writers should approve of Hartman and de Man's literary theory, It is found that they both spent so much time on studying the rhetorical device. For de Man, he took much more time to think about language at the philosophical level, Thirdly, starting from criticizing the New Criticism, they resisted a kind of literary theory that had been institutionalized through the western critics. Hartman and Miller show great interest in how readers and critics bring into effect during the process of reading in which what personal conditions they have to possess and what responsibilities they have to undertake. Finally, It is discussed that Derrida's deconstruction theory exerts an influence on Hartman. Derrida's book Glas caused Hartman great interest in breaking the boundary line between philosophy and literature. In the meanwhile, Hartman believes that Glas is the ideal critical text.Chapter three is one of the core parts of paper. It mainly elaborates on Hartman's revaluation of romantic poetry from his interpretation on Wordsworth's poetry. The first part discusses about Hartman's study and estimation on romantic literature from late 18th century to 19th century. He made use of the research methods of phenomenology to analyse Wordsworth's standpoints about imagination, religion and emotion. This part separates into four portions. The first portion demonstrates that the forming process of imagination will come to an end after nature presenting into the consciousness and self-consciousness emerging in the mind. Though the self-consciousness and imagination will lead to pure ego of which is deprived, they are the most important of artistic or literary creation. The second portion mainly analyses Wordsworth's standpoints about religion. Hartman found that Wordsworth's standpoints about religion are very complicated, blending pantheism with Christianity. Under the guiding of imagination, the poets burst out the apocalypse emotion. The third portion emphasizes that besides the self-consciousness and imagination there must be emotion putting into the esthetic activity in order to reach the apocalypse aesthetic realm. The apocalypse emotion can make the poets surpass the limits of sensory experiences in order to gain the emotional existence in nature and develop the love to all human beings. The above-mention is achieved in the intentionality.The fourth portion discusses how the self-consciousness impels romantic literature to take shape and what special features are. The second part depicts the analysis in relation to the wandering Jew. This part separates into two portions. Above all, it depicts the history of the concept which is called ego or self created and developed by the great thinkers from the Enlightenment to the Romantic Movement. From that, it transits to Wordsworth's self-image and self-identity that is a solitary wanderer. On the basis of the national identity and life experience, Hartman extended the meaning of the solitary wanderer to the wandering Jew. As a Jewish intellectual who was forced to exile overseas, Hartman took the burden of society and history bravely. Hartman might not only make sure his national identity, but also establish the social and academic value of a Jewish intellectual. Then he put forward the "Jewish imagination" in order to resist the repression from the literary creation and the literary interpretation in the western Christianity cultural background. It is so obvious that he prefer to criticize the extremely irrational romantic spirit on the literary and political level. It is necessary to illustrate some important historical and religious events due to they are involved with the social background. The third portion depicts what psychoaesthics and trauma theory are. It studies how Hartman can apply Freud's psychoanalysis, deconstruction rhetoric and Wordsworth's poetry to cross-interpret each other. Besides that, Hartman discovered that Genet Jean utilized the language of flowers to describe his trauma in the heart and then re-nominate something in order to remedy the trauma that he had got from his life environment and experience. Hartman sets forth the trauma theory inspired by Derrida's deconstruction thoughts about pharmakon (pharmaceutic), anthropology and psychoanalysis.Chapter four focuses on the relationship between Hartman's literary critical thought and other criticism theories, and elaborates on the main characteristics of his theory from various perspectives at a macro level. The first part is named literary essay as literary commentary. At the beginning from Lukacs' viewpoints about literary essay and literary commentary, Hartman discussed why Lukacs treated literary essay equal as literary commentary and the conception of literary essay. Besides that, he also discussed how the critics create the literary essay. The second part writes out the style of literary commentary. Hartman took Derrida's Glas and Carlyle's Sartor Resartus as an example to explain his literary commentary. Furthermore, he puts forward the severe criticism which is aimed at purification or the motive for purity in literary field, because purification might be an obstruction to the development of literary commentary excluding various and creative characteristics of literary commentary. The third part talks about the criticizing on practical criticism. Hartman refuted the New Criticism which is on behalf of the practical criticism. On the one hand, he affirmed the academic value of the New Criticism. He reasserted his viewpoints on literary commentary, demanding that readers and critics should focus on critical style. In addition, Hartman advocated the philosophical criticism in order to break the boundary line between literature and philosophy. The fourth part studies the allegoric way of reading and criticism. It starts from the esthetic characteristics of the allegories, analysing how the allegoric way of the criticism revolts the authority of traditional literary criticism. The readers and critics should pay attention to rhetoric feature of literary language which can influence the meaning of literary text. He objected to readers and critics depending on excessively the rhetoric way of reading and criticism. Adopting the various way of interpretation, the readers ought to find more plentiful meaning in the literary text. Hartman emphasized that a critic should face the text with postive attitude as an responsible reader, while the indeterminacy meaning in the text is the buried treasure.Chapter five is the conclusion of the dissertation, which is a brief assessment and a multi-level of Hartman's literary critical thought, a further conclusion and summing-up of the dissertation and some personal opinions. First of all, it introduces the main contents of Hartman's literary critical thought. For one thing, he engaged in the revaluating romantic literature which improved contemporary critics to pay close attention to romantic literature.For another, he criticized the contemporary critical theories, providing the ideal literary commentary and broadening the space of contemporary literary. Secondly, the last part talks about my introspection and criticism on Hartman's literary critical thought. The interdisciplinary feature of his literary critical thought is not only a striding over the subjects in the academic institutions, but also a striding over text and social life. Since "deconstruction" and "indeterminacy" that it incarnates are the main features of post-modern theory, Hartman's literary critical thought belongs to the post-modern theory. Hartman's critical practice provides us with so much inspiration that we can make a synthesis of a variety of thought resources.
|
PDF Full Text Request