Hartman's Problematics in "A Poet's Progress"

Hartman’s essay arguing the “via naturaliter negativa” of Wordsworth’s poetry seemed to me a difficult read, since I’m only familiar with “the way of negation” in terms of God and spirituality. Therefore, using this paradigm to show how imagination exists as Wordsworth’s true muse, as opposed to nature, which is the commonly accepted theory, Hartman confused me as a reader. I understood his overall argument, that nature guides Wordsworth only so much until the power of imagination supersedes and leads him to a moment of sublime ecstasy communicable solely via poetry. However, I understand via negativa as a spiritual philosophy preaching the negation of all things beyond God himself/herself/itself. So, for Hartman to use this concept as the base of his argument, he introduced some clarity issues for me. Of course, I could be reading this completely incorrectly, but I will point out why I found such difficulty with Hartman’s idea of “via naturaliter negativa” as a means to argue the superiority of imagination over nature in Wordsworth’s poetry.

Spiritually, the “via negativa” is an extreme philosophy, and one’s adherence to it proves frustrating in today’s modern culture. It holds that in order to truly understand and recognize the presence and power of God, one must reject everything that is not God. So there’s no music, no television, no technology. Nothing secular in any fashion should be prioritized before one’s faith in the divine. Even the concept of a temporal, material experience should not exist in one’s mind, as it does not point to an idea of God. As a result, the abstract idea of experience must be eliminated as well. Essentially, the “via negativa” promotes the disposal of all secular thought, culture, and experience in order to understand that life’s true meaning lies in its emptiness. God is the end all, be all.

So, my problem with Hartman’s use of the “via negativa” to describe nature’s demotion from subject of worship to pedagogical guardian in Wordsworth’s poetry is that it conflicts with the essential philosophy of negation. In Hartman’s argument, everything still exists in and around nature, and it is Wordsworth’s imagination that allows him to communicate emotions and thoughts, not the presence of nature itself. He says, “When the external stimulus (that being nature) is too clearly present, the poet falls mute and corroborates Blake’s strongest objection: ‘Natural Objects always did and now do weaken, deaden, and obliterate Imagination in me.’” Hence, Wordsworth is not experiencing emptiness at all. It’s quite the opposite. The poet’s imagination and internal experiences are all provoked by the presence of nature, and therefore nature is not a divine presence. Rather, the Wordsworth’s autonomous mind is the celebrated subject. In my opinion, nothing really is being negated or eliminated in Hartman’s argument. Everything coexists, and consequently, the possibility for emptiness is made null and void. Perhaps Hartman could have used another paradigm of thought to describe the reclassification of nature for Wordsworth only because I find the aspect of via negativa to be a weak metaphor.