Reading as Infinite Commentary in
Tintern Abbey
Among the American deconstructionists associated with the so-called Yale School, Geoffrey Hartman occupies a distinctive position. Whereas Paul de Man foregrounds the rhetorical self-undoing of philosophical claims and J. Hillis Miller emphasizes narrative undecidability, Hartman turns persistently to Romantic poetry—especially Wordsworth—as the site where interpretation becomes both necessary and impossible. His criticism does not dismantle texts aggressively; rather, it dwells within their indeterminacy, treating commentary itself as a creative act.
If one were to select a single literary work most representative of Hartman’s deconstructive orientation, Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey is exemplary. Hartman repeatedly returns to Wordsworth because Romantic lyric explicitly meditates on memory, self-presence, nature, and consciousness—precisely those sites where metaphysical stability appears most secure. Yet in Hartman’s readings, these sites reveal instability, belatedness, and textual excess.
This essay argues that Tintern Abbey exemplifies Hartman’s deconstructive method because it stages the impossibility of pure presence, the instability of memory as origin, and the endless productivity of interpretation.
I. Hartman’s Deconstructive Distinction
Hartman differs subtly but significantly from Derrida and de Man.
- Derrida interrogates metaphysical hierarchies philosophically.
- De Man exposes the rhetorical collapse of epistemological claims.
- Hartman turns toward the experience of reading itself, treating indeterminacy as generative rather than destructive.
In works such as The Fate of Reading, Hartman suggests that Romantic poetry reveals how commentary proliferates around a text without ever exhausting it. Indeterminacy becomes not failure but invitation.
Thus, in approaching Tintern Abbey, the question is not whether Wordsworth achieves transcendence, but how the poem continually defers the presence it seeks.
II. The Illusion of Immediate Presence
Tintern Abbey opens with apparent immediacy:
“Five years have passed…”
The speaker situates himself in the present moment of return. Nature appears before him. The poem initially promises direct communion between mind and landscape.
Yet this immediacy is already mediated by memory. The landscape is not experienced as pure presence but as recollection layered upon recollection. The speaker describes how, during absence, these scenes provided “tranquil restoration.”
Thus, presence is structured through absence. The current moment is haunted by prior moments. Hartman emphasizes that Romantic immediacy is never simple; it is retrospective and interpretive.
The poem seeks origin, yet origin appears only through belated reflection.
III. Memory as Supplement
Memory in the poem functions as supplement in the Derridean sense: it appears secondary to immediate perception but reveals that perception itself is incomplete.
Wordsworth suggests that the remembered landscape nourished his “mind’s eye” during urban exile. Yet this “mind’s eye” replaces physical sight. Nature survives as internalized image.
Hartman reads such passages as demonstrating that Romantic transcendence is textualized. The poet does not recover pure unity with nature; he produces a narrative of recovery.
The supplement—memory—reveals that there was never simple presence to begin with.
IV. The Problem of the Unified Self
The poem stages development: youthful ecstasy yields to mature reflection. The speaker contrasts past passion with present “serene and blessed mood.”
However, this temporal narrative fractures self-identity. The earlier self becomes other—almost alien. The speaker refers to his former enthusiasm as if observing a stranger.
Hartman notes that Romantic selfhood is constituted through division. The poem does not present continuous identity but layered subjectivity.
Thus, the unity the poem seems to assert is rhetorically constructed.
V. Apostrophe and the Instability of Address
In the latter portion, the poem addresses Dorothy, the speaker’s sister. This apostrophe appears to stabilize meaning through shared experience. The speaker projects hope that Dorothy will remember this moment as he once remembered his earlier visits.
Yet this gesture repeats the structure of belatedness. The present becomes future memory in advance. Experience is immediately deferred into recollection.
Apostrophe, in deconstructive terms, is unstable because it animates an absent or silent addressee. Dorothy listens, but her interiority remains inaccessible. The address cannot guarantee reciprocal presence.
Thus, the poem’s final movement does not secure communion; it multiplies interpretive layering.
VI. Nature as Textual Field
For Hartman, Romantic nature is never purely external landscape. It is already inscribed within poetic language.
The River Wye, the cliffs, the hedgerows—these appear vividly, yet their significance emerges through metaphor and reflection. The landscape becomes repository for philosophical meditation.
The natural scene is less object than interpretive surface. Nature functions as text—open to commentary, incapable of final closure.
Hartman’s insight lies in showing that Romanticism both seeks transcendence and reveals its textual mediation.
VII. Indeterminacy as Generative Excess
Unlike de Man, who stresses unreadability, Hartman emphasizes productive indeterminacy. The poem does not collapse into incoherence; it sustains interpretive multiplicity.
Is the poem affirming transcendence, or confessing its impossibility? Both readings remain viable.
This doubleness ensures the poem’s longevity. Each generation returns, adding commentary without exhausting meaning.
For Hartman, this endless commentary is not parasitic; it is intrinsic to literary life.
VIII. Reading as Ethical Relation
Hartman’s deconstruction resists purely destructive critique. He insists that the critic must respect textual alterity.
Tintern Abbey exemplifies this ethical reading because it resists domination. Attempts to fix its meaning—pure transcendence or pure skepticism—flatten its complexity.
The poem remains open, inviting interpretation while withholding final authority.
Hartmanian Summary Table
| Hartman Concept | Manifestation in Tintern Abbey | Deconstructive Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Belatedness | “Five years have passed” | Presence mediated by memory |
| Supplementarity | Memory replacing direct sight | No original immediacy |
| Divided Self | Youthful vs mature consciousness | Identity fractured |
| Apostrophe | Address to Dorothy | Deferred reciprocity |
| Nature as Text | Landscape as reflective medium | External world textualized |
| Generative Indeterminacy | Affirmation vs skepticism tension | Meaning proliferates |
| Commentary as Fate | Poem invites endless rereading | Interpretation intrinsic |
Conclusion: Hartman’s Romantic Deconstruction
Tintern Abbey stands as representative text for Geoffrey Hartman because it reveals Romantic lyric as field of indeterminacy rather than transcendental certainty. The poem gestures toward unity with nature and stable selfhood, yet its reliance on memory, apostrophe, and temporal layering exposes that unity as mediated.
Hartman’s deconstruction is not iconoclastic but attentive. He shows that literary meaning is not destroyed by instability; it is sustained by it. Romantic poetry becomes inexhaustible because it cannot ground its own transcendence.
