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

[jfleming at sfu.ca]

sorry, Peter. "what is to be interpreted." the text. J

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:12:10 -0800 milton-l at lists.richmond.edu wrote:
> 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/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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."