[Milton-L] historicism, formalism, etc.

[Harold Skulsky]

James Fleming makes the following negative claim about the accessibility
of "what a given text means, or is able to mean": 

"The only way to know that one’s interpretation had reached it [i.e.,
"what a given text means, etc.] would be by comparison with an
understanding of the interpretandum just as it is." 

This is a very ambitious generalization. It purports to cover the whole
space of candidate methods of validating attempts to reach the meaning
of a text. No doubt the supporting argument for the generalization will
be correspondingly elaborate, and require many pages to encompass. But
on pain of selling us a pig in a poke, Professor Fleming owes us at
least a usable sketch of the supporting argument.

One kind of reply will be clearly unacceptable: 

"If you think you have an alternative to comparison with the
interpretandum just as it is, pray share it with us! [Embarrassed
silence from yours truly.] Ah, you haven't any; point proved!" 

That stratagem would be an attempt to shift the burden of proof, and
hence a refusal to open the poke and give us a fair glimpse of the pig.

Another kind of reply would be equally unacceptable:

"A supporting argument is neither possible nor necessary; the need for
insight into the alleged Thing in Itself is obvious!"

In matters of this kind, nothing is obvious.