COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\input basic
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
\input basic
\vsize 9 in
\hsize 7 in
\ctrline{\bf Gadamer's Analysis of Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics}
\ctrline{\it by Malcolm Brown}
  
\vskip .5 cm
Gadamer begins by pointing out that that Schleiermacher's
characterization of hermeneutics is a negative one: hermeneutics
is the craft to avoid misunderstanding (``Hermeneutik ist die
Kunst, Missverstand zu vermeiden.'')
  
Gadamer now comes to his chief point. He mentions that for Schleiermacher,
hermeneutics is a craft that pertains to all understanding of texts and speech;
in other words, it becomes {\it universal}.  Gadamer next mentions 
Schleiermacher's division of the hermeneutic craft into its grammatical and
psychological aspects. Strangely enough, however, Gadamer immediately sets
the grammatical aspect aside in order to focus exclusively on the
psychological aspect. Gadamer writes:
  
\vskip .5 cm
\hbox par 420pt{So
stellt er [Schleiermacher] neben die grammatische die
psychologische (technische) Auslegung --- und in dieser liegt
sein Eigenstes. Wir lassen im Folgenden die...Ausfuehrungen
Schleiermachers zur grammatischen Interpretation               
beiseite.$↑1$}
  
\vskip .5 cm
The question which immediately comes to mind is: why leave out any consideration
of the grammatical interpretation? That might not only overlook important
relationships between these two aspects, but also runs the risk of unfairly
isolating only half of Schleiermacher's theory. It should be remarked that
Gadamer cites nothing from Schleiermacher's writings that justifies such a
procedure. Instead, Gadamer offers this explanation:
   
\vskip 1 in
\hbox par 420pt{Auf
alle Faelle ist diese psychologische Interpretation
fuer die Theoriebildung des 19. Jahrhunderts --- fuer
Savigny, Boeckh, Steinthal, und vor allen Dilthey --- die
eigentlich bestimmende               
geworden.$↑2$}
  
\vskip .5 cm
Such an explanation is hardly satsifactory: it appears that Gadamer is
basing is appraisal of Schleiermacher on Schleiermacher's {\it reception}
and not on Schleiermacher himself. This hardly does justice to
Schleiermacher: might it not be the case that the 19th century interpretations
were mistaken? In any event, it hardly seems correct to uncritically equate
the interpretations of Schleiermacher with Schleiermacher's own theory.
The key question is: does Schleiermacher himself offer any suggestion
that would justify the isolation of the pyschological interpretation?
This is the critical question which the second part of this essay will
deal with.
  
Gadamer sums up his view of Schleiermacher's theory:
  
\hbox par 420pt{Schleiermachers Eigenstes ist aber die
psychologische Interpretation. Sie ist letzten Endes ein
divinatorisches Verhalten, ein Sichversetzen in die ganze
Verfassung des Schriftstellers, eine Auffassung des
`inneren Herganges' der Abfassung eines Werkes, ein
Nachbilden des schoepferischen Aktes.  Verstehen also
ist eine auf eine urspruengliche Produktion bezogene
Reproduktion...$↑4$}
  
\vfill\end