rod coltman literature and being - michael bryson · construed broadly as interpretation theory,...

67HermeneuticsLiteratureandBeing

RodColtman

“Withinalllinguisticphenomena,theliteraryworkofartoccupiesaprivilegedrelationshiptointerpretationandthusmovesintotheneighborhoodofphilosophy.”

(Gadamer1985)

Ifinditinterestingthat,whenitcomestointerpretingliterarytexts,theterm“criticism”hastraditionallyhadfarmorecurrency,atleastintheEnglish-speakingworld,thantheword“hermeneutics.”Thenotionofliterarycriticism,ofcourse,tendstoimplyadegreeofvaluejudgment,andwhileitdoesoftenentailpronouncementsaboutthesuperiorityofaShakespeareoraGoetheoverso-called“lesserpoets”andawide-rangingrankorderingofliteraryachievementofallkinds,thetermitself,stemmingfromtheGreekkrinein(“tojudge,”“todecide”)neednot,ofcourse,applysolelytotheestablishmentofhierarchies.Much“criticism,”infact,consistsessentiallyofvariouskindsofanalysesandmodesofinterpretation,whoseeffortsareorientedmoreprimarilytowardunderstanding,whichistosaydeterminingordecidingthemeaningofatext,ratherthanevaluatingitandcomparingittoothers.Andevenwhenitdoesinvolvesuchevaluationsandcomparisons,literarycriticism(likeanyothermodeoftextualinterpretation,forthatmatter)necessarilyentailsthismorefundamentalaspectofkrinein,thatofjudgingordecidinguponmeaning,thatis,tounderstandortointerpret.Ironically,however,theterm“hermeneutics,”whichpredominatelyconnotesinterpretationtheoryratherthancriticismperseandwhichtendstoamoredescriptiveratherthanevaluativeemployment,hasbeeninvokedprimarily,atleastsinceSchleiermacher,innonliteraryrealmssuchasphilosophy,whereinithasevenbeendeployed,asoftenasnot,inreferencetonontextualphenomena.

Construedbroadlyasinterpretationtheory,however,hermeneuticscouldbeunderstoodtoencompassallmodesofinterpretation(textualorotherwise),includinganykindofliterarycriticism,fromAristotle’spoeticstotheNewCriticismofthe1950s,aswellastheFrenchtraditionofstructuralismandevenperhapsDerrideanpoststructuralthought.However,onlyahandfuloflatemodernandpostmodernthinkers,beginningwithSchleiermacherandrunningthroughthelikesofDilthey,Heidegger(perhapsmostsignificantly),Gadamer,Habermas,andRicoeur,haveeitherthematizedhermeneuticsorcharacterizedtheirownthinkingas,atleastinsomerespect,hermeneutical,andevenfewerhavedevotedextensiveruminationsonthethemeofhermeneuticsanditsrelationtoliteratureassuch.EvenHeidegger,havingfamouslypulledtheideaofhermeneuticsintotherealmofontologyincoiningtheterm“thehermeneuticsoffacticity,”neverthelessrarelycharacterizeshisownprofoundphilosophicalrelationtopoetryasafunctionofhermeneuticsunderstoodasaprocessoftextualinterpretation,whichiswhyIwouldliketofocustheseremarksontwoofthemostprominentthinkerstohavedoneso—

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Hans-GeorgGadamerand,toalesserextentandmostlybywayofcontrast,PaulRicoeur.Morespecifically,however,IwouldliketozeroinonwhatbothGadamerandRicoeurrefertoasa“limitcase”inliteraryhermeneutics,theso-called“eminent”or“absolute”text,thatistosay,thepoeticworkofart,theexplicationofwhichmayrevealanaspectoftextualinterpretationthatgoesbeneathcriticismoranalysisandnotonlycarriesitbeyondthesphereofliterarystudiesandintotherealmofphilosophy,butmayperhapsevenestablishit,alongsidetheexperienceofart,thehistoricityofunderstanding,andthespeculativestructureoflanguage,asafourthprimaryexemplarofthephenomenonofunderstandinginGadamer’sontology,otherwiseknownasphilosophicalhermeneutics.AlthoughGadamerandRicoeurbothrecognizethepoeticworkor,atleast,lyricpoetry,asbelongingtoaspecialclassofliterature,theydodisplaysomewhatdifferentattitudestowardit.InwhatmaybeaslightlydisparagingallusiontoGadamer,inhisessay,“SpeakingandWriting,”PaulRicoeurmakesthefollowingpronouncement:“Mycontentionisthatdiscoursecannotfailtobeaboutsomething.Insayingthis,Iamdenyingtheideologyofabsolutetexts.Onlyafewsophisticatedtexts,alongthelinesofMallarmé’spoetry,satisfythisidealofatextwithoutreference”(1976,36–37).GiventhatGadameroftencitesMallarmé’s“poésiepure”ashisprimeexample,itwouldseemthatRicoeur’sideaofan“absolutetext”thatis“withoutreference”doescorrespondtowhatGadamermeansbytheeminenttext.Forourpurposes,however,themostsalientfeatureofthiscommentisthatRicoeurgoesontociteMallarmé’spurepoetryas“alimitingcaseandanexception”that“cannotgivethekeytoalltheothertexts,evenpoetictexts,…whichincludeallfictionalliteraturewhetherlyricalornarrative”(1976,37).Gadamer,too,referstotheeminenttextasa“limitcase”forhermeneutics,but,inclaimingthe“absolutetext”asanexception—evenfromotherformsofpoetry—RicoeurisclearlyunwillingtograntGadamer’sthesisthattheeminenttextdoes,infact,offerusthe“key”(or,atleast,akey)notonlytounderstanding“allothertexts,”buttounderstandingtheverynatureoflanguageitself,andthusRicoeurwouldalsoseemunwillingtofollowGadamerintothephenomenologicalandontologicaldeependofhermeneutictheory.

ForGadamer,oneofthehallmarksoftheeminenttextisitsun-translatability.Thatis,allliteraryworksresisttranslationtoonedegreeoranother,butlyricpoetrydefiesitaltogether.Ricoeuraddressesthequestionoftranslatabilityaswell,onlyhetacklesitviahistheoryofmetaphor.QuotingMonroeBeardsley,Ricoeurseesametaphoras“‘apoeminminiature.’Hencetherelationbetweentheliteralmeaningandthefigurativemeaninginametaphorislikeanabridgedversionwithinasinglesentenceofthecomplexinterplayofsignificationsthatcharacterizetheliteraryworkasawhole”(1976,46).Ricoeur,however,distinguishesbetweentwokindsofmetaphor:metaphorsofsubstitution,asin“thefootofthemountain,”whereonesimplysubstitutesoneterm(thefigurative)foranother(theliteral—inthiscase,“foot”for“base”),and“tensionmetaphors,”whichoperateatthelevelofthesentenceratherthanthewordandcreateatensioninthatsentencebetweentheliteralandfigurativemeaningsinwhichtheliteralmeaningissublimatedandthefigurativemeaningcomestothefore;thetensionbetweenthetwo,however,remains,theideabeingnottocomeupwithanalternativewayofexpressingtheliteral,buttoexpresssomethingentirelynew.Themetaphorofsubstitution,forRicoeur,issimplyakindofstylistictrickthattypicallyfunctionsasmere

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

ornamentorarhetoricalflourish,whereasthetensionmetaphor(which,forRicoeur,istheonlytruemetaphor)iswhatactuallyallowsforthepossibilityofpoeticutterances.Hence,hetellsus,“realmetaphorsareuntranslatable.Onlymetaphorsofsubstitutionaresusceptibleoftranslationwhichcouldrestoretheliteralsignification.Tensionmetaphorsarenottranslatablebecausetheycreatetheirmeaning.Thisisnottosaythattheycannotbeparaphrased,justthatsuchaparaphraseisinfiniteandincapableofexhaustingtheinnovativemeaning.…ametaphorisnotanornamentofdiscourse.Ithasmorethananemotivevaluebecauseitoffersnewinformation.Ametaphor,inshort,tellsussomethingnewaboutreality”(1976,52–53).ForRicoeur,then,“realmetaphors”and,byextension,poetrywouldnotbesusceptibletotranslationbecausetranslationassumesa“literalsignification”orreferentlyingbeneaththetropewhereinthetranslatormaypresumablyfinditsrealmeaning,asignificationthatwouldbemissingfrompoeticdiscourse,whichcreatesitsownseparatemeaning.

Gadamer,aswewillsee,wouldagreewiththelatterpartofthisformulation—theuntranslatabilityofthepoem—but,asforthewaythatRicoeurcharacterizesthefunctionofmetaphorinpoetry,Gadamerseemstoholdacontraryandratherdefinitiveattitude,whichheexpressesinseveralplaces.Forexample,inhisessay,“OntheTruthoftheWord,”hemaintainsthat“theessenceofpoetrydoesnotlieinmetaphorandtheuseofmetaphor.Poeticdiscourseisnotattainedbytakingunpoeticalspeechandaddingmetaphor”(2007,151).And,rathermorevehemently,in“TextandInterpretation,”hedeclaresthat,“Rhetoricistherealmwheremetaphorholdssway.Inrhetoriconeenjoysmetaphorasmetaphor.Inpoetry,atheoryofmetaphoraslittledeservesaplaceofhonorasatheoryofwordplay”(1989a,186).Inalllikelihood,whathehasinmindherearemetaphorsofsubstitution,whichRicoeurwouldagreehavenorealplaceinpoetry,butGadamerseemstorejectthenotionofanykindofmetaphor,tensionorotherwise,asthecreativeengineofpoeticexpression.But,regardlessoftheirdifferencesonthefunctionofmetaphorinpoetry,themorepertinentpointhereforourdiscussionistheirapparentagreementconcerningthetranslatabilityofpoetry.

GadamerconcurswithRicoeur’sideathatonecannotreallytranslateapoem.Atbest,anotherpoetcanattempttocreateanewpoeminthesecondlanguagethatapproximatesthefeelandstructureandperhapssuggestssomethingoftheworldevokedbytheoriginalwork.ForGadamer,however,whenitcomestotextsingeneral,translatabilityisinverselyproportionaltothedegreetowhichthetextitselfdisappears.Take,forinstance,asimplemessagerequestingone’sattendanceatabusinessmeetingor,say,askingonetolunch.Unlessthelunchinvitationhassomeemotionalresonance,orthemeetingisofsomegrandsignificance,inwhichcasethenoteitselfmightbekeptasasouvenirofsomekind,inmostinstances,theprecisewordingofthenoteisoflittlesignificanceandthetextitselfisofnoimportanceandistypicallysetasideandforgottenimmediately.Eveninexceptionalcases,thetextitselfisusuallyonlyofvalueasareminderoftheevent.Theimportantthing,ofcourse,istheevent,thestateofaffairs,ortheoccasionreferredtointhemessage,notthemessageitself.And,ofcourse,anysuchmessagecouldbeeasilytranslatedintoanotherlanguagewithlittleornolossofmeaning,becausetheexactwordingofthetextisirrelevant.Thisisshownbythefactthat,inmostcases,onecouldevenexpressessentiallythesamethoughtwithentirelydifferentwordsinthesamelanguagewithlittleornolossofmeaning.Themessageisallaboutits

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

referentandnotatallaboutitself.

Inpoetry,ontheotherhand,thewordsandthesyntaxofaspecificpoemareinandofthemselvesessentialtothepoem,infact,theyarethepoem.If,therefore,onechangesthewordingorsubstitutesforeignwordsfortheoriginal,thepoem(atleasttheoriginalone)islost.Andthisuntranslatabilityoperatesonakindof“slidingscale”fromthelyricpoemtoother,lesshermetic,modesofpoetrytonovelsandplays,which,becauseoftheirgreateremploymentofordinarydiction,areconsiderablymoretranslatable,tomorepropositionaltextssuchasscientificworks,orletters,orsimplenotes,which,becausetheyarelargelyinformational,maybe,asGadamersays,“translatedwithoutsacrifice,evenbyacomputer”(2007,151).1Theselatterarethekindsoftextsthat(unlessoneisahistorian)oneusuallyneednotreturntoafteronehasunderstoodtheirimport.Inmostsuchtexts,whatiscommunicatedisbeyondthetext.Thetextbecomessimplythe“rootdocument”andisonlydealtwithasatextwhenproblemsintheinterpretationoccur(Gadamer1989a,180).2Sothetext,ineffect,tendstodisappearassoonasitsmeaningisgrasped.

Thetextofapoem,however,neverdisappearsinthisway.Becauseitdoesnotrefertoanythingoutsideofitself,thereisnothingbeyondthepoemthatismoreimportantthanthepoemitself.Thetextofthepoemremains,inotherwords,becausethepoemisnotaboutanything,orrather,itisonlyaboutitself.Whatoneistryingtounderstandwhenonereadsaworkofliteratureistheworkitself.And,contrarytoRicoeur’spronouncementquotedearlierthat“onlyafewsophisticatedtexts,alongthelinesofMallarmé’spoetry,satisfythisidealofatextwithoutreference”(1976,36–37),forGadamer,thislackofreferencewouldholdtrueforanyandallformsofliterature,although,moreproperlyspeaking,notext,noteven“poésiepure,”lacksreferencealtogether;otherwise,theywouldmeannothing.“Languageandwriting,”writesGadamer,“alwaysexistintheirreferentialfunction.Theyarenot,butrathertheymean,andthatalsoappliesevenwhenthethingmeantisnowhereelsethanintheappearingword.Poeticspeakingcomestofulfillmentonlyinspeakingorreadingitself,andofcoursethisentailsthatitisnottherewithoutbeingunderstood”(1989a,186).Thatistosay,thereferentialfunctionofdiscoursestilloperatesinpoetry,butthereferenceisturnedbackonitself,andthisself-referentialitynotonlyconstitutesthemeaningofthepoemandtherebyallowsittobeunderstood,butthepoeticwordonlyexistsinsofarasitunderstood.

Ricoeur,however,doessaysomethingslightlyclosertoGadamer’stakeonthereferentialityofallliterarytexts(andnotjustlyricpoetry)when,inTheRuleofMetaphor,hetellsusthat“theproductionofdiscourseas‘literature’signifiesverypreciselythattherelationshipofsensetoreferenceissuspended.‘Literature’wouldbethatsortofdiscoursethathasnotdenotationbutonlyconnotation”(1977,220).Ifweunderstandconnotationasakindofimpliedorsomehowdiffuseproductionofmeaning,asopposedtothedirectreferentialityofdenotation,thenperhapsreferenceinliteraturewouldnotbeeliminatedaltogether;presumablyitwouldremain“suspended”withinthetensioninherentinpoeticmetaphor.But,whileconnotationandmetaphorictensionmaywellpreservesomedegreeofreferentiality,albeitindirect,thisdoesnotnecessarilyamounttoself-reference,acrucialaspectofGadamer’sunderstandingofhowmeaningoperatesinliterature.However,self-referenceisnotjustabouttheproductionofmeaning,forGadamer.Forinhisclaimthatthepoeticworddoesnotevenexistwithoutbeing

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

understood,wehaveourfirstinklingofaGadamerianontologyoflanguageinsofarasthisrecursivenessovercomeswhatGadamerreferstoinPartThreeofTruthandMethod,as“Sprachvergessenheit,”theforgettingoflanguagethatcharacterizesmostofthehistoryofphilosophicaldiscourseandwhichoccurswheneverlanguageisconstruedinpurelyreferentialterms,asamereinstrumentusedtodenotereality,ratherthanasaphenomenonofontologicalsignificanceinitsownright.Thephilosophicaltradition,inotherwords,allowslanguageitselfto“disappear”inmuchthesamewaythatthenonliterarytextdisappearsinfavorofthesubjectmattertowhichitrefers.

Buttheself-referentialityoftheeminenttexthasaspecialstatuswithrespecttospokenlanguageaswell.Ontheonehand,insofarasthepoetictextstandsbyitselfinitslackofoutwardreferentiality,italsostandsapartfromanypriorspeaking,whichistosaythatitdoesnotreferback(orforward,forthatmatter)toanyspecificexternallinguisticutteranceas,say,thetextofaspeechdoes,ortherecordofalegalproceeding,ortheminutesofameeting,orthetextofaplay.Thepoemdoescalloutforrecitation,but,forGadamer,noactualverbalizingofthetextcaneverquitedojusticetothepoemasaliteraryworkofart.And,whilesomeformsofliteraturedodemandtobereadoutloud,lyricpoetryinparticular“cannotbereadaloud,”saysGadamer,becausethespeechmustbeameditativespeech”(1985,249).Inotherwords,onehearsapoembestnotwithone’searsbutwithwhathecallsthe“innerear.”And,thoughheisneverentirelyexplicitaboutwhathemeansbythis,theinnerearispresumablynothingmorethanthewayapoemsounds(orresounds?)inourmindswhenwereaditsilently.Asheputsit,“Mythesisisnowthattheliteraryworkofarthasitsexistencemoreorlessfortheinnerear.Theinnerearapprehendstheidealmeaninginlanguage,somethingnobodyevercanhear.Theidealformoflanguage,then,demandssomethingunattainablefromthehumanvoice,andthatisexactlythemodeofbeingofaliterarytext”(Gadamer1985,248).Hence,whileGadamerfindshimselfinagreementwiththePlatoofthe“SeventhLetter”andtheSocratesofthePhaedrusthatthepeculiarweaknessofthewrittenworkasaseriesofpropositionsisthatitcannotdefenditselfbecauseitisdetachedfromtheoriginalspeakerandthecircumstancesinwhichitwasoriginallyuttered,andthatspeechasdialogueistherefore,ashesays,“ahead”ofwriting,theaudiblevoice,nonetheless,isneveradequatetotheliterarytext,whichisthereforeaheadoflanguage(asspeech)becausetheintentionsoftheauthorareessentiallyirrelevanttoitsfullmeaning,whichcannotbesaidofmostpropositionaltexts.ForGadamer,“Whatistrulyuniquetoitisthefactthataliterarytextraisesitsvoicefromitself,sotospeak,andspeaksinnobody’sname,notinthenameofagodoralawbutfromitself!NowImaintainthefollowing:the‘idealspeaker’ofsuchawordistheidealreader!”(2007,145).Presumably,then,the“idealreader”ofthepoemwouldnotbetheauthororevenaveryskilledactor,butthe“innervoice,”thevoicethatspeakswhenwereadsilently.Inliterature,then,itistheauthorofthetextandhisorherintentionsthatdisappearratherthanthetextitselforlanguage,which,farfromdisappearing,actuallycomesintoitsowninthepoeticwork.

However,itisnotthattheenunciatedsoundsofthewordsinapoemareirrelevant—quitethecontrary.ForGadamer,theverbalsoundandshapeofthewords,theirtoneandrhythm,arecompletelyessentialtoandinseparablefromtheirmeaning.Thisinseparability,infact,iswhatconstitutesthetextastext:“Justastheword‘text’reallymeansaninter-wovennessofthreads

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

thatdoesnoteveragainallowtheindividualthreadstoemerge,so,too,thepoetictextisatextinthesensethatitselementshavemergedintoaunifiedseriesofwordsandsounds”(Gadamer1980,6).Inhis1985essay,“PhilosophyandLiterature,”headds,“Wehaveaninsolublenetworkinagoodpoem,onesothicklyintermeshedofsoundandmeaningthatevensmallchangesinthetextareabletodestroytheentirepoem”(1985,254).Thus,theeminenttextis,forGadamer,theonlytruetextinthesenseofsomethingwoven,intertwined,a“textile”inwhichthesoundandthemeaningconstitutethewarpandweftofafabricthatwouldfallapartcompletelywereanyofitsthreadspulled.Apoem,therefore,isnothingwithoutenunciation,butthatenunciationisinevitablydiminishedwheneveraparticularspeakerrecitesitoutloudbecauseheorshecanneverdojusticeto,andtheouterearcanneveradequatelycapture,everypossiblenuanceorshadeofmeaningthatagreatpoemiscapableof.Moreimportantly,however,theverbalrecitationofthepoemisinevitablyoccasionalandthusatemporaloccurrenceinwhichthespoken“text”fadesawayimmediatelyuponcompletion.Thephenomenonofreadingandlisteningwiththeinnerear,however,whileittoowillneverexhaustthepossibilitiesofapoeticworkofart,hasawayofdispensingwiththistemporalaspectinsofarasthetext,ashesays,“standswritten”(Gadamer1986,114),whichistosaythatitdoesnotfadeawaybutremainspresent.Andnotonlydoesthispersistence,this“standingwritten,”insomesenseaccountforthetimelessnessofatext(thesenseinwhichapoeticwork,justasinotherartisticgenres,mightcometobeconsideredagreatworkofart,aso-called“classic”ora“masterpiece”),italsoallowsusaninsightintotheontologyoflanguageinawaythatpropositionaltextsdonot.

Ifitsself-referentialityexemptsitfromtheephemeralnatureofpropositionaltexts(andeventhespokenword)andthusbringsthepoeticwordto“stand”(orperhaps“standout”),thiswouldseemtohaveramificationsforthetemporalityoftheliterarytext,which,forGadamer,isofgreatontologicalsignificance.Whenitcomestoasimplemessage(ormostnonliterarytexts,forthatmatter,whichGadamerreferstoasbelongingto“ordinarydiscourse”),itsreferentialfunctionestablishesaseparation,adistance,betweenthetextanditsmeaning,and,becausethetextitselfistransient,acertaintemporalityattendstoit.Itfunctionsasamerestageonthewaytowhatisreallyofinterest,thatis,thesubjectmatterofthetext.Ontheotherhand,thefactthatalyricpoemisnotaboutanythingbutitselfmeansthatthisdistanciationiseliminated,andthisparticularkindoftemporalitynolongerobtainsbecausethereisnoseparatereferent.Thereareonlythewordsthemselves;thetextiseverythingand,assuch,doesnotdisappearbutpersistsandpresentsitself,showsitself,asitselfandnotinrelationtosomethingelse.In“TheRelevanceoftheBeautiful,”heobservesthat“thepoemdoesnotfade,forthepoeticwordbringsthetransienceoftimetoastandstill.Ittoo‘standswritten,’notasapromiseorasapledge,butasasayingwhereitsownpresenceisinplay”(1986,114).Thiswouldseemtoimplythatpoetry’s“eminence”isnotsimplyanepithetthatGadameremploystocharacterizeitassomehowdifferentfromothermodesofdiscourseand,therefore,somethingspecialorevenunique;rather,insofarasit“standswritten,”the“e-minence”oftheeminenttext,its“standingout,”alsoservesasanimplicitdescriptionofitsontologicalstatuswithrespecttolanguageitself.Unlikeordinarydiscourse,thefactthattheliterarytext“demandstobecomepresentinitslinguisticappearanceandnotjusttocarryoutitsfunctionofconveyingamessage”(1989a,182)hasprofoundimplicationsforourunderstandingof

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

languageitself,insofarasitexplainswhy,ashesays,“Inliteraturewefindthatlanguageitselfcomestoappearanceinaveryspecialway”(TI181).Inotherwords,itisonlyintheliterarytext,andespeciallyinpoetry,thatweencounterlanguageaslanguage,andnotsimplyasamediumforcommunicatingaseparatesubjectmatter.

However,ifthewords“standing”and“presence”wouldseemtosuggestacompletelackoftemporality,anyonefamiliarwithGadamer’sworkwillimmediatelyrecognizethat,whenheusesthephrase“inplay”intheaforementionedpassage,hedoessoadvisedly.Iftheword“play”soundsasthoughitimpliessomekindoftemporalityor,atleast,motion,itshould,becausethepoeticwordisbynomeansatemporal.Itisjustthatitstemporality,likeitsreference,isturnedinwardandexpressesitself,notasatransientstageinalinearmovementtowardanunderstandingofsomethingbeyondit,butastheconstantandchangingrelationbetweensoundandmeaning,theplaythatconstitutestheverytextuality,thefabric,ofthepoetictext.Inthisunderstandingoftheliteraryworkofart,infact,onecanseeGadamerbringinghisanalysisoftheroleofplayintheontologyoftheworkofartingeneral,whichhedevelopsinPartIofTruthandMethod,togetherwithhisdiscussionoftheontologyoflanguageinPartIIIofthatseminalwork.3And,giventhatHeidegger’sfamousessay,“OriginoftheWorkofArt,”servesGadamerasaprimaryimpetusforhisunderstandingoftheartingeneral,itisonlyappropriatethathewouldleanonaHeideggeriannotionoftemporality,whenheexplainsthat,“ThetemporalstructureofthismovementissomethingIcall‘whiling’[Verweilen],alingeringthatoccupiesthispresentnessandintowhichamediatorydiscourseofinterpretationmustenter.Withoutthereadinessofthepersonwhoisreceivingandassimilatingthetexttobe‘allears,’nopoeticaltextwillspeak”(1989a,189).Thus,thepoeticwordtakesonanonlineartemporalitythatisnotatallstatic,butisconstitutedbyakindofinternalmovementor“whiling,”amovementthatGadameralsocharacterizesas“play,”andplay,forGadamer,isakindofdialogicalmovementthatoperatesinalllinguisticunderstanding.Inthepoetictext,playmanifestsitselfasaninteractionbetweensoundandmeaningthatentailsnosubjectivecontrolbecausethereaderisnotinchargeofthismovementbutis,instead,takenupbyit.Anditisinthisdialecticalinterplayofsoundandmeaning,asthereader’sworldandtheworldofthetextcometogetherinwhatGadamerfamouslycalls“dieHorizontverschmelzung,”(1989b)afusion(or,better,a‘blending’)oftheirrespectivehorizons,thatunderstandingoccurs,anditiswithinthisdialecticalphenomenonofunderstandingthatGadamerfindstherealontologicalpoweror“valence”ofthepoeticword.

InPartIofTruthandMethod,Gadamerlaysoutforusthehistoryofaestheticsandtakesissuewiththekindof“aestheticconsciousness”thattakestheworkofartasanobjectofstudyandevaluation.Instead,hearguesthat“play”constitutesthemodeofexistenceoftheworkofartandthattheworkofartisnotfullypresentuntilitisexperienced.Inhisdiscussionofhowanartisticimageorpicture(Bild),suchasapaintingoranartisticphotograph,differsfromamerecopyofsomething(Abbild),like,forexample,apassportphoto,hepointsoutthat,unlikethecopy,theimageisnotmerelytryingtoshowustheoriginalasaccuratelyaspossible,thatis,tomerelypresenttheoriginaltousinadifferentform;instead,theimage“represents”theoriginalsomewhatinthewaythatalawyeroranagentrepresentshisorherclient.Whetherornottheclientisphysicallypresentinthecourtroom,heorsheislegallypresentinsofarasthe

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

lawyeristhereinhisorherstead.Butthelawyerisnotsimplyacipherorastand-infortheclientbut,inaway,combineswiththeclienttocreatesomethinggreater(atleastinlegalterms)thantheclientwouldbealone.Gadamer’scontentionisthattheartisticpictureisnotjustsomethingphysicallynewinitsownright,norisitsimplyastand-inforthethingitisdepicting;rather,initsrelationtotheoriginal(Urbild),itactuallyconstitutesan“increaseinbeing”forthatoriginalinatleasttwoways.First,thepicturere-presentstheoriginal,notasitordinarilyappears,butinanewway;thatistosay,itshowsussomethingnewabouttheoriginalthatwouldnotbeapparentinamoremundaneencounterwithit.Second,andrathermoresubtly,theimageincreasesthebeingoftheoriginaltotheextentthatthethingdepictedisonlytheoriginalinsofarasithasbeendepicted.Theoriginal,inotherwords,wouldnotbeanoriginalwithouttheexistenceoftheimage.ThisisperhapseasiertoseeintheGerman:the“Urbild”isonlyan“Urbild”inrelationtoa“Bild.”Otherwise,onewouldnevercallitthis.

GadamerdoesincludetheliteraryworkofartinhisdiscussionofaestheticontologyinTruthandMethod,butitisalmostasafterthought,andhefocusesonthenovelashisexemplarratherthanthepoem.Itisapparentlynotuntilhislaterwritings,someofwhichIhaveinvokedhere,includinghisextensiveruminationsonpoetssuchasFriedrichHölderlin,Rainer-MariaRilke,StephanGeorg,and(perhapsmostsignificantly)PaulCelan4thathebeginstounderstandthepoem,preciselybecauseofitslinguisticnature,ashavingevengreaterontologicalsignificancethantheplasticarts.Inhisessay,“OntheTruthoftheWord,”infact,Gadamerasksthefollowingquestionwithregardtopoeticexpression(orAussage):“Whatisitthatisthereineverythingthatissaidandcomestostandbeforeus,whentheAussagetakesplaceorhappens?”(2007,148).Ifsimplyposingthequestioninthiswayshowsusthatheisthinkingofpoetryinverydifferenttermsfromthoseoftraditionalaestheticsorliterarycriticism,hisanswertakesussquarelyintoHeideggerianterritory:“Ithinkitisself-presence,thebeingofthe‘there’[Seindes‘Da’],andnotwhatisexpressedasitsobjectivecontent.Therearenopoeticobjects,onlypoeticpresentationsofobjects”(2007,148).Heidegger,ofcourse,tellsusthatthehumanbeing“dwellspoetically”(1971),andhismostfamouswayofexpressingthisistorefertolanguageas“thehouseofbeing”(1993).Gadamerwillfollowhismentorintotheontologicalrealmoflanguage,butifHeideggerseeslanguageasthehouseofbeing(otherwiseunderstoodasthe‘Da’orthe‘there’ofbeing),thenGadamer’swillexpressitsomewhatdifferentlywhenhesaysthat“beingthatcanbeunderstoodislanguage”(1989b).Thatis,humanbeingsdonotsimplypossesslanguageasatoolforcommunicationoramoreorlesstransparentlensthroughwhichtoviewtheworld,theyactuallyexistlinguistically.Language,inotherwords,isthemodeofhumanexistenceintheworld,and,becauseofthefundamentallinguisticality(Sprachlichkeit)ofhumanbeing,ourmodeofunderstandingislinguistic,and,consequently,whatwecanunderstandoftheworldisinevitablylinguisticaswell.Thisisnottosaythatnothingintheworldexistsapartfromhumanbeingsorlanguage;itisjustthatlanguagerepresentstheworldinthewaythatthepicturerepresentstheoriginal.Theoriginal,insomeway,gainsbeingthroughbeingrepresented,andGadamer’slaterworknotonlyextendsthisformulationtothepoeticword,itdoessowitharatherprofounddifference:“Itisnotsomuchthethingsaidinthesenseofexpressinganobjectivecontentthatnowgainsinbeingasratheritisbeingasawhole.…Thewordisnotanelementoftheworldlikecolors

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

orformsthatcanbefittedintoaneworderofthings.Rather,everywordisitselfalreadyanelementofaneworderofthingsandthereforeisitselfpotentiallythisorderinitsentirety.Whenawordresonates,awholelanguageandeverythingitisabletosayiscalledforth—anditknowshowtosayeverything”(OTW152).Thus,itisnotthattheontologicalvalenceofthepoemissimply,aswiththepicture,thatitincreasesthebeingofwhatitrepresents,but,becausethemediumofpoetryislanguage,andthepoemdoesnotrefertoanythingbeyonditself,itonlyrefersbacktoitself—aslanguage.Consequently,ifapoemcanbesaidtorepresentanything,thenwhatis“re-presented”initislanguageitself,because,forGadamer,itisonlythroughthehermeneuticinterplaybetweenthewholeoflanguageandindividualwordsthatanythingcanmeananythingatall.

So,whetherornotwearespeakinginstrictlypoetic,literary,oreventextualterms,ifwedounderstandhermeneuticsstraightforwardlyas“interpretationtheory,”andifweunderstandinterpretationbroadlyasaprocessofunderstandingorarrivingatmeaning,thenwearestillleftwiththequestionofhowwearetounderstand(orinterpret)thewords“understanding”and“meaning,”which,inturn,raisestheobviousquestionofhowto“understand”whateverexplanationwemightofferforthesewords,andsoon—aprocessthatmightbecharacterizedasapotentiallyinfinite(andthereforefutileandempty)logicalregression,or,insofaraseachchainofsuccessiveinterpretationsmightleadinevitablybacktotheoriginalterm,aseeminglyvicious(andthereforefutileandempty)logicalcircle—andyet,wedounderstand,andwedofindmeaningintheworld.Gadamerisnotaloneincharacterizingthisphenomenonastheso-called“hermeneuticcircle,”theplayorinterplaybetweenpartandwhole,textandcontext,theindividualwordsandtheentiretyoflanguage,thatallowsunderstandingtooccurandmeaningtoemergewithoutbecomingviciousorfutileorempty.ButGadamer’sgreatinnovationistoseethisemergenceofmeaningasakindofdialecticalanddialogical“Aufhebung,”asortofHegeliansublationoftheantithesisofwholeandpartintheemergenceofsomethingnew,anemergencethatoccursineveryinstanceofunderstanding,includingtextualunderstanding,and(atleastinhislaterwritings)theliterarytext,andthelyricpoeminparticular,thatistosay,theeminenttext,seemstohaveemergedforhimasthequintessentialexemplarymomentofthisphenomenon.

ReferencesGadamer,Hans-Georg(1980)“TheEminentTextandItsTruth,”trans.GeoffreyWaite,TheBulletinoftheMidwestModernLanguageAssociation13(1):3–10.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg(1985)“PhilosophyandLiterature,”trans.AnthonyJ.Steinbock,ManandWorld18:241–259.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg(1986)“TheRelevanceoftheBeautiful:ArtasPlay,Symbol,andFestival,”trans.DanTate,inTheRelevanceoftheBeautifulandOtherEssays,ed.RobertBernasconi,trans.DanTate,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.3–53.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg(1989a)“TextandInterpretation,”trans.DennisSchmidtandRichard

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Palmer,inDialogueandDeconstruction:TheGadamerDerridaEncounter,ed.DianeP.MichelfelderandRichardE.Palmer,Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,pp.21–51.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg(1989b)TruthandMethod,2ndrev.ed.,trans.rev.byJoelWiensheimerandDonaldG.Marshall,NewYork:TheCrossroadsPublishingCompany.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg(1997)GadameronCelan:“WhoAmIandWhoareYou?”andOtherEssays,trans.anded.RichardHeinemannandBruceKrajewski,Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg(2007)“OntheTruthoftheWord,”trans.RichardPalmer,inTheGadamerReader:ABouquetoftheLaterWritings,ed.RichardPalmer,Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,pp.132–155.

Heidegger,Martin(1971)Poetry,Language,Thought,trans.AlbertHofstadter,NewYork:Harper&Row.

Heidegger,Martin(1993)“TheWaytoLanguage,”inBasicWritings,revisedandexpandededition,ed.DavidFarrellKrell,NewYork:HarperandCollins,pp.392–426.

Ricoeur,Paul(1976)InterpretationTheory:DiscourseandtheSurplusofMeaning,FortWorth,TX:TexasChristianUniversityPress.

Ricoeur,Paul(1977)TheRuleofMetaphor:MultidisciplinaryStudiesoftheCreationofMeaninginLanguage,trans.RobertCzernywithKathleenMcLaughlinandJohnCostello,SJ.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Notes1AlthoughIthinkGadamertendstooverestimatetheefficacyofcomputertranslationsof

complicatedtexts,eveniftheyareprimarilyinformational,asanyonewhohastriedtousethetranslatefunctioninGoogleorawebbrowsertofigureoutwhataforeignWebpageisallaboutcanattest.

2This,ofcourse,wouldseemtoraisethesecond-orderquestionofthestatusofthetextoftheinterpretationitself,thecritic’sowntext,but,asGadamerputsit,thediscourseoftheinterpreterisnotitselfatext,rather“itservesthetext”(1989a,180).

3Seeespecially1989b,PartI,SectionII:“TheOntologyoftheWorkofArtandItsHermeneuticSignificance,”andPartIII,Section3,“LanguageasHorizonofaHermeneuticOntology.”

4Foroneofthemostilluminatingtextsintheregard,IwouldrecommendGadamer’sessaysonCelan,especially,“WerbinIchundWerbistDu?”(“WhoAmIandWhoAreYou?”),whichhavebeencollectedandtranslatedintoEnglish(Gadamer1997),andIwould

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

particularlyrecommendGeraldBruns’introductiontothevolume,towhichthepresentessayowesagreatdebt.

Keane, Niall, and Chris Lawn. The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4042997.Created from csun on 2018-01-08 15:04:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5. J

ohn

Wile

y &

Son

s, In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.