[Milton-L] historicism, formalism, etc. (Skulsky)

[Peter C. Herman]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, but can I 
ask what precisely is an "interpretandum" (the 
plural, I assume, being "interpretanda") and how 
this differs from an "interpretation"?

Peter C. Herman



At 03:45 PM 11/21/2008, you wrote:
>Prof. Skulsky: the case is perhaps clearest with regard to historicist
>interpretation.
>
>The goal of the latter, both old and new, can (I hope) be generalized as
>recovering the original understanding of a given text in context. Moreover,
>there is, from the historicist point of view, no other way to arrive at an
>understanding of such an interpretandum. One cannot just interpret it,
>without historicist apparatus, because of the danger of anachronistically
>misunderstanding it. (That is, if you like, the whole premise of
>historicism.) Instead, one must contextualize -- Jameson's "always
>historicize." From historical context, one seeks to derive the parameters of
>valid meaning for the primary interpretandum.
>
>Now the context, from the point of view of interpretative work, consists in
>nothing other than a set of interpretanda. Valid understanding of these
>determines valid interpretation of the primary interpretandum. But clearly,
>the contextual interpretanda are every bit as much in need of
>contextualization-historicization as the primary one. Therefore, one would
>have to perform the same interpretative operation for the contextual
>interpretanda as one hopes to perform, with their help, for the primary. And
>so on for whatever context one found for help with the context. This is an
>infinite regress.
>
>The only way to stop it -- on the objectivist logic of historicism -- would
>be, as I said before, to get at some point an understanding of historical
>interpretanda outside the regress of historicist interpretation. But that
>getting is exactly what historicism says is impossible. Thus historicism, by
>trying to ensure interpretative validity, succeeds only in deconstructing
>it. Again, _in its own terms_. The point is not to show that we can't
>understand historical texts, but that historicism cannot give a coherent
>account of how, or whether, we do.
>
>Or so it seems to me. Opposing pigs, poked or otherwise, more than welcome.
>JDF
>
>
>
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:33:51 -0500 milton-l at lists.richmond.edu wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Milton-L mailing list
> > Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> > Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> > http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> >
> > Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> >
>
>
>James Dougal Fleming
>Associate Professor
>Department of English
>Simon Fraser University
>778-782-4713
>cell: 604-290-1637
>
>"Not always, nor of necessity, nor for the most part."
>_______________________________________________
>Milton-L mailing list
>Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>Manage your list membership and access list 
>archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
>Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/