In their evaluation ofJude the Obscure (1895), some earlier literary critics have justifiably (given the historical context) judged the text by the standards of the then dominant and sustained New Criticism trend, taking into account its symbiotic relationship with modernist aesthetics. The basic premise behind this conception was the aesthetic notion of structural and thematic unity as well as coherence and integrity of character. These notions were high on the agenda of the New Criticism of the 1940s and onwards. The narrative was found most lacking in this respect. An article entitled, “Hardy and the Fragmentation of Consciousness” (1975) by Harold L. Weatherby, a foremost Hardy critic, serves as an outstanding example of such a critical view. It makes the case that what ails Jude is its unruliness and disjunctiveness: “the brilliance of the novel's peripheries can scarcely compensate for a profound weakness at its center. Indeed the centre cannot hold: the book falls into fragments” (“Hardy” 469). Weatherby continues, arguing that “There is no unified authorial consciousness” (470), that “Hardy as narrator contradicts himself repeatedly in his estimation of what is right or wrong, good or bad, for his characters” (470), and that it is “an artistic failure . . . failing to achieve unity and coherence” (479). Hardy, in addition, is undeservedly dismissed as “the old-fashioned man from Wessex” (483) – which reminds us of the well-known “good little Thomas Hardy” epithets of Henry James's adverse judgment (Cox xxxi). The article also associates incoherence and contradictions in the narrative with attitudinal ambivalences in Hardy's own mind (473, 476). Undeniably, Jude is permeated with incoherence. Who can disagree? It is deeply involved in sustained and unsettled opposition and what may be termed the play of Derridean différance (Positions 14). And, indeed, Hardy himself acknowledges the tangle of disconnections and self-contradictions disrupting the stability of character in a notebook admission (which shows it to be his design): Of course the book is all contrasts . . . Sue and her heathen gods set against Jude's reading the Greek testament; Christminster academical, Christminster in the slums; Jude the saint, Jude the sinner; Sue the Pagan, Sue the saint, marriage, no marriage; &c., &c. (Life 272–73)

中文翻译：

---

托马斯·哈代的《无名之辈》中后现代的微光

在他们的评价中无名的裘德（1895年），一些早期的文学批评家（在历史背景下）根据当时占主导地位和持续存在的新批评趋势的标准来判断文本，考虑到它与现代主义美学的共生关系，这是有道理的。这一概念背后的基本前提是结构和主题统一以及性格的连贯性和完整性的美学概念。这些概念在 1940 年代及以后的新批评议程中占据重要位置。叙事被发现在这方面最缺乏。哈代最重要的批评家哈罗德·韦瑟比 (Harold L. Weatherby) 的一篇题为“哈代和意识的碎片化”（1975 年）的文章就是这种批判观点的杰出例子。它证明了什么是问题裘德是它的不羁和脱节：“小说边缘的光辉几乎无法弥补其中心的深刻弱点。确实，中心无法容纳：这本书变成了碎片”（“Hardy” 469）。韦瑟比继续说，“没有统一的作者意识”（470），“作为叙述者的哈代反复自相矛盾，他对他的角色的对与错，好与坏的估计”（470），并且它是“艺术上的失败。. . 未能实现统一和连贯”（479）。此外，哈代被不恰当地贬为“威塞克斯的老派人”（483）——这让我们想起了亨利·詹姆斯（Cox xxxi）不利判断的著名“好小托马斯·哈代”绰号。这篇文章还将叙述中的不连贯和矛盾与哈代自己头脑中的态度矛盾联系起来（473、476）。不可否认，裘德充满了不连贯。谁能不同意？它深深地卷入了持续和不稳定的对立中，这可以被称为德里迪安的戏剧差异(职位14）。而且，事实上，哈代本人承认，在笔记本承认中，断断续续和自相矛盾的混乱破坏了性格的稳定性（这表明这是他的设计）：当然书里全是反差。. . 苏和她的异教众神反对裘德阅读希腊遗嘱；Christminster Academical，贫民窟中的Christminster；圣人犹大，罪人犹大；起诉异教徒，起诉圣人，结婚，不结婚；&c., &c. (生活272–73)