{"title":"“No Sin to Limp”: Critique as Error in Geoffrey Hartman’s Essays on Midrash","authors":"Samuel P. Catlin","doi":"10.1515/naha-2022-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article argues that contemporary polemics against critical reading, understood as the enduring legacy of “theory” in the humanities, overlook the unusual and generative concept of critique formulated by one of the literary scholars most closely associated with “theory,” the German-born American literary critic Geoffrey Hartman. For Hartman, critique amounts to a thinking that exposes itself to the alterity of the future and thus risks being wrong. Engaging two of Hartman’s essays from the mid-1980s, “The Struggle for the Text” and “Meaning, Error, Text,” the article specifically argues that Hartman derives this concept of critique as thinking that risks error from rabbinic midrash. However, this does not mean that Hartman seeks to “do midrash” himself. To the contrary, what Hartman learns from midrash is that the very structure of linguistic repetition, citation, or imitation forecloses the possibility of absolute fidelity to tradition. In “The Struggle for the Text,” he demonstrates this lesson through subversive readings of Genesis 32 and a fragment from Sigmund Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle; in “Meaning, Error, Text,” Hartman historicizes his hermeneutic in relation to Christian supersession and the Holocaust, claiming ethical and political significance for his “restitution” of midrash as a model of critique.","PeriodicalId":40309,"journal":{"name":"Naharaim","volume":"16 1","pages":"53 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naharaim","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/naha-2022-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract This article argues that contemporary polemics against critical reading, understood as the enduring legacy of “theory” in the humanities, overlook the unusual and generative concept of critique formulated by one of the literary scholars most closely associated with “theory,” the German-born American literary critic Geoffrey Hartman. For Hartman, critique amounts to a thinking that exposes itself to the alterity of the future and thus risks being wrong. Engaging two of Hartman’s essays from the mid-1980s, “The Struggle for the Text” and “Meaning, Error, Text,” the article specifically argues that Hartman derives this concept of critique as thinking that risks error from rabbinic midrash. However, this does not mean that Hartman seeks to “do midrash” himself. To the contrary, what Hartman learns from midrash is that the very structure of linguistic repetition, citation, or imitation forecloses the possibility of absolute fidelity to tradition. In “The Struggle for the Text,” he demonstrates this lesson through subversive readings of Genesis 32 and a fragment from Sigmund Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle; in “Meaning, Error, Text,” Hartman historicizes his hermeneutic in relation to Christian supersession and the Holocaust, claiming ethical and political significance for his “restitution” of midrash as a model of critique.
摘要本文认为,作为人文学科中“理论”的持久遗产,当代反对批判性阅读的论战忽视了与“理论”联系最密切的文学学者之一、德裔美国文学评论家杰弗里·哈特曼(Geoffrey Hartman)提出的不同寻常的、生发的批评概念。对哈特曼来说,批判相当于一种思想,它将自己暴露在未来的变化之中,因此有可能是错误的。这篇文章引用了哈特曼在20世纪80年代中期的两篇文章,“为文本而斗争”和“意义,错误,文本”,文章特别指出,哈特曼从拉比的米德拉什中得出了批判的概念,认为它有可能出错。然而,这并不意味着哈特曼试图“做米德拉什”自己。相反,哈特曼从米德拉什那里学到的是,语言重复、引用或模仿的结构本身就排除了绝对忠于传统的可能性。在《为文本而斗争》(The Struggle for The Text)一书中,他通过颠覆性地解读《创世纪》第32章和西格蒙德·弗洛伊德(Sigmund Freud)的《超越快乐原则》(Beyond The Pleasure Principle)中的片段,展示了这一教训;在《意义、错误、文本》一书中,哈特曼将他的解释学与基督教取代和大屠杀的关系历史化,声称他“恢复”米德拉什作为批判模式的伦理和政治意义。