-
And it's this final movement of the simile, according to this ingenious argument by Geoffrey Hartman, that Hartman calls the counter-plot.
根据哈特曼灵巧的论点看来，这就是这个比喻最后的深意，他称之为反计。
-
Both Hartman and Fish argued that the rhetorical strategies of Milton's similes work to reinforce the theological categories of good and evil.
哈特曼和费什都论述到这里修辞上的策略,起到了加强,善与恶在神学层面上的区分。
-
The rhetorical strategy that Milton uses to give us this perspective of eternity is what Geoffrey Hartman called Milton's counter-plot.
弥尔顿习惯于展现给我们的修辞性的手法,这种永恒的看法正是被哈特曼称为,弥尔顿的反策略。
-
Through the dynamics of the counter-plot, the similes reassure us of what Hartman calls the "graceful coexistence of free will and divine providence."
从这个反计的整个催动力来看，这些比喻向我们再次确认了被哈特曼称为,“自由意志和神圣天意华丽的共存“的结合“
-
Hartman describes Milton's tendency in Paradise Lost, and he takes this term from Coleridge: the tendency to stand ab extra, to stand from outside.
哈特曼描述了弥尔顿在中的写作趋向，并且从柯勒律治那里借用了这个习语：,由外而内俯视自身的趋势。
-
Hartman associates this image of Milton's standing ab extra with the figures in so many of those similes who seem also to be standing ab extra.
哈特曼把弥尔顿从外俯视的形象,和他众多的明喻中似乎也置身局外的形象,相联系进行思考。
-
So, Hartman and Fish have forwarded two perfectly ingenious theories of Milton's similes, and they've had a tremendous impact, rightly, on generations now of readers of Milton.
所以，哈特曼和费什提出了两个相当聪明的理论,给弥尔顿的两代读者，留下了深远的影响。
-
Hartman's absolutely right to insist that no theological concept is as important to Paradise Lost as free will on the one hand and divine providence on the other.
哈特曼有绝对的权利坚持说任何神学的概念,在中的意义都不足与匹敌自由意志的重要性,也不足以和神圣的天命相比。
-
I think Hartman is absolutely right to note that it's this aspect of Milton's similes that sets them entirely apart from the similes in any other epic poem.
我认为他注意到了弥尔顿明喻中的这个方面,是突出区别于其他诗歌中的明喻的,此举是非常恰当无误的。
-
Now you may remember what Geoffrey Hartman had argued that the moon represents the power of divine providence, and there's a lot of ways in which this reading makes sense.
你们可能还记得哈特曼曾经争论过,月亮代表的是神圣的天命的力量，有很多理解这段的方式都是有意义的。
-
Geoffrey Hartman's theory had a similar tendency to align the poem with a kind of a religious orthodoxy.
哈特曼的理论有着相似的趋势,给这首诗附加上一种宗教上的正统思想。
-
Milton's looking in at his own work from a distance, according to Coleridge and then Hartman.
据柯勒律治和哈特曼所言，弥尔顿是遥远地从外俯视自己的作品。
-
For Hartman, the Miltonic simile actually permits the reader something like the perspective of eternity, a divine perspective, and of course, this is exactly what Stanley Fish had told us was impossible.
对他而言，弥尔顿式的比喻实际上使得读者能够,得知一些类似于永恒的透视，一个神圣的看法，当然，这是据费什所有，不可能的事情。
-
And Hartman made sense of the seemingly chaotic and confused movement of the narrator's imagination here.
哈特曼使叙述者在这里混乱无序的想象,变得能够理解，有所深意。
-
This is the simile of the belated peasant that Hartman describes.
这是关于哈特曼描述的迟来的农夫。
-
Let's move on. Neither of these critics -neither Fish nor Hartman discusses one of the most celebrated aspects of this last simile that we've looked at, and I have a little hunch that there's a reason for their neglect.
接着往下看，没有哪个评论家,-费什或者哈特曼，都没有讨论,上一个比喻中最为著名的一个方面，我有些许预感，他们对这点的忽视是有因可循的。
-
The plot around the simile is glorifying the heroic Satan here, and Hartman ingeniously locates throughout a number of Milton's similes this same dynamic of a redemptive counter-plot.
这个比喻中的情节在这里美化了英雄主义的撒旦，哈特曼非常精明地在弥尔顿的大量比喻中,布置了同样的拯救性的反计。
-
Hartman's image of the simile isn't temporal the way Fish's was.
哈特曼关于这些比喻的描述并不是时间性的。
-
So think of the article on Milton's similes by Geoffrey Hartman.
想一想杰弗里哈特曼关于弥尔顿的明喻写的文章。
-
The question of providential justice is of course of primary significance to Milton's poem, but Hartman goes on to say that the moon, which reminds us of a calm and perfect sense of Providence, also works to guarantee the principal of free will.
这里，关于天佑的公平的问题,是其对于弥尔顿的诗最基本的重要性，但是哈特曼接着又说月亮是，这提醒了我们天意的冷静和完美感，月亮在这儿也是为了保障自由意志的原则。
-
Next time reread for the third time - you will be repaid by your dedication - Books One and Two, this time focusing on the similes. Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of class, read the essays by Stanley Fish and Geoffrey Hartman.
下次再把这两册书读一遍,你们的付出终将得到回报,第一二册书，这次的重点在明喻上，同时，正如我在课的一开始提到的，看斯坦利·费什和杰弗里·哈特曼写的文章。
-
The other great critic of the Miltonic simile for my money takes a completely different tack, and that's Geoffrey Hartman who makes an argument that might even be thought to contradict Fish's argument, although actually Geoffrey Hartman wrote his piece first.
在我看来，另一个对弥尔顿的比喻研究深远的评论家,采取了截然不同的方针，他就是杰弗里哈特曼,他做出了一个被认为是在反驳费什的观点，尽管实际上是哈特曼首先写出了他的观点。
-
Like Fish, Hartman is most interested in the similes of the first two books, the similes that provide some kind of window onto the world of Satan, and he focuses on the simile actually ; that follows the simile of Satan's shield that we've been looking at; it follows the simile of the spear that Fish had analyzed.
和费什一样，哈特曼对于,前两本书里的那些比喻，那些提供了，一种窥视撒旦的世界的途径的比喻最感兴趣，他集中研究了那些实际上,和我们在理解的撒旦的庇护有所关联的比喻;,这个比喻紧随着费什已经分析过的长矛的比喻。
应用推荐