“Hermeneutics” is the theory of interpretation, which involves understanding texts, utterances, and similar forms of communication. It is important to note that this term does not refer to a specific philosophical movement in the twentieth century. Instead, hermeneutics covers the art of interpreting and goes beyond theology and legal theory. In fact, hermeneutics plays a crucial role in understanding any written text, whether it is a literary work or the interpretation of law or Scripture. While it avoids merging critical thinking with relativism, hermeneutics recognizes the significance of historical context in human understanding. It acknowledges that ideas are influenced by the historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts they originate from.
Hermeneutics encompasses the understanding of a philosophical, theological, or literary problem by delving into its origin. This involves reconstructing the historical context of scientific and literary works. However, such reconstruction is not solely focused on the past; it aims to comprehend how a problem connects to the present. The motivation behind hermeneutic reconstruction stems from a philosophical desire to address enduring questions that have been transmitted throughout history as meaningful inquiries deserving contemplation.
Hermeneutic understanding aims to overcome the limitations of a specific perspective by investigating unexplored areas and addressing emerging questions. Its objective is to promote meaningful discussion by adopting the other person’s language instead of merely translating it. Hermeneutics encompasses the essence of philosophy, which involves seeking wisdom and comprehending human existence as a whole. Nevertheless, translation eventually becomes an overpowering barrier.
In order to fully comprehend a text, it is crucial to consider the cultural and historical context in which it was written. While reading a text in its original language and having knowledge of its cultural background is ideal, there are often situations where translation becomes necessary. Translation goes beyond mere word substitution; it involves interpreting meaning from one historical and linguistic framework to another. The resulting expression in the target language may not be exactly identical to the original, but it represents a new manifestation of meaning influenced by its own historical development.
Hermeneutics, the art of understanding and interpreting texts, has been practiced since the emergence of written language. As the need for accurate comprehension and interpretation of texts arose, hermeneutics came into existence. The term itself can be traced back to Hermes, an ancient figure responsible for translating divine thoughts and actions into understandable language for humans. Initially, hermeneutics took on the form of oracular statements and prophecies.
The task of hermeneutics was to connect the known world people lived in with the unfamiliar meaning. In the later years of the Middle Ages, theological hermeneutics developed, with Catholic theologians dealing with hermeneutical situations in practice. Starting with precise interpretations of texts (initially religious and literary works), hermeneutics gradually broadened its area of study, raising more overall and fundamental inquiries. Heidegger’s realization of the ontological importance of understanding was a significant milestone in hermeneutical theory.
He demonstrated the link between existence and comprehension in language, defining comprehension as interpretation. Heideggr’s hermeneutics circle is a key principle in hermeneutics, illustrating the reciprocal relationship between understanding and interpretation. The significance of preunderstanding is highlighted in Heidegger’s approach. According to him, all interpretations, including scientific ones, are influenced by the specific circumstances of the interpreter: a completely unbiased interpretation is not possible.
In the realm of hermeneutical theory, two fundamental points are particularly important when examining works of art, especially literature. First, it is possible to have a better understanding of the author’s intention and the work itself than the author personally possesses. Second, there is no definitive interpretation of a text. In fact, a literal text allows for multiple interpretations and fresh understandings.
The more performances and interpretations that exist, the more enriched the text becomes in terms of its potential capabilities because these interpretations become part of the text’s ontological possibilities.
Every verbal work of art contains its own unique world, which is created through the author’s creativity, intuition, intellectual prowess, and moral experiences.
The reader has a duty to engage their perceptive mind and utilize their intellectual, moral, and aesthetic judgment in order to fully comprehend a literary composition. To truly understand a text,
readers must also be aware of the author’s aesthetic experiences and knowledge that are intertwined into the fabric of the text.
It is important to note that certain artworks can attract a wider audience, while others necessitate a well-developed mind and specific experiences for comprehension. This specialized knowledge or experience is the focus of vertical context studies. Vertical context refers to the concealed meaning within a literary work that differs from its surface appearance. Claes Schaar likens exploring this underlying context to conducting text archeology, where understanding the past is vital for comprehending the present.
Connotations arise within larger literary systems composed of collections of texts accessible to homogeneous groups of readers sharing the same cultural background. These readers are likely to identify and respond similarly to significant elements of language. Conversely, an unresponsive reader who lacks associations will derive a narrower and restricted meaning from their analysis of the immediate context.
In order to fully comprehend and integrate the text, it is necessary for the reader to possess familiarity with various aspects of the author’s background, such as their historical, social, cultural, and geographical information. Additionally, a sufficient understanding of the author themselves and their body of work is crucial. This knowledge serves a vital role in grasping the concept of allusion. Moreover, it is essential for the reader to be able to recognize and interpret these details within the structure of the text itself, which is known as vertical context. Essentially, background knowledge pertains to the author’s personal history while vertical context refers specifically to the text being analyzed. The two forms that make up vertical context are allusions and quotations, both of which are derived from other literary sources and can be observed within horizontal context. Background knowledge encompasses pertinent information about the culture, history, and time period associated with a particular piece or body of work.
Vertical context in literary research refers to the hidden meaning of a literary piece, which is distinct from what the reader perceives on a surface level. The correlation between the horizontal and vertical context forms the foundation of the author’s created literary image. The term “hermeneutics,” derived from the Greek “hermeneutice,” has been in use since the 17th century but has roots in ancient philosophy.
Plato used the term “hermeneutic knowledge” in several dialogues to explore religious intuitions. He contrasted this type of knowledge with “sophia,” which is a deeper understanding of truth. Religious knowledge is the understanding of what has been revealed or said, but it does not involve determining the truth-value of the statement, unlike sophia. Aristotle expanded on this concept by titling his work on logic and semantics “Peri hermeneias,” later translated as “De interpretatione.” It was only with the Stoics that we see a methodological awareness of the challenges in interpreting texts emerge, particularly when it comes to interpreting myths.
The Stoics lacked a systematic theory of interpretation, but Philo of Alexandria introduced one. According to him, a text’s literal meaning could conceal a deeper non-literal meaning, which required systematic interpretative work to uncover. Origenes built upon this by proposing that Scripture had three levels of meaning: body, soul, and spirit. Augustine had a significant impact on modern hermeneutics and brought forth the universality-claim of hermeneutics. This claim was based on Augustine’s belief in the connection between language and interpretation, asserting that understanding Scripture involved profound self-awareness. The contributions of Thomas Aquinas also played a role in shaping modern hermeneutics and caught the attention of a young Heidegger.
Heidegger focused primarily on Aquinas’s interpretation of Being, rather than his exploration of hermeneutics such as identifying the true authorship of certain pseudo-Aristotelian texts. Aquinas examines the legitimacy of these texts by comparing them to the recognized collection of Aristotle’s works, proposing a critical-philological approach that would later influence Friedrich Schleiermacher’s conception of grammatical interpretation.
There are multiple connections between medieval philosophy and modern hermeneutics. One connection is the similarity in the way both interpret sacred texts. Medieval interpretations focused on the allegorical nature rather than historical roots, which is similar to Gadamer’s effort to restore the importance of allegory in hermeneutics. [17] However, it is with Martin Luther’s sola scriptura that a truly modern hermeneutics emerged.
Following Luther’s emphasis on faith and inwardness, the authority of traditional interpretations of the Bible can be questioned in order to highlight how each reader faces the challenge of personalizing the truths of the text. Our understanding of a text does not rely on adopting the prevailing or authorized readings of the time. Each individual reader is responsible for forging their own path towards uncovering the potential meaning and truth of the text. Thus, reading takes on a new problematics.” [18]
Coming from a contrasting tradition, Giambattisto Vico, who wrote the Scienza nuova (1725), also plays a significant role in the development of early modern hermeneutics. Vico criticizes the prevailing Cartesianism of his era by asserting that thinking is always situated within a specific cultural context. This context is shaped by history and closely tied to ordinary language, evolving from myth and poetry to more abstract theoretical concepts and technical terms. To truly comprehend oneself means understanding the origins and development of one’s own intellectual perspectives.
The historical sciences are now more urgent and provide a different model of truth and objectivity compared to the natural sciences. In these sciences, historians do not observe idealized objects that are independent of the observer, but rather study their own world. There is no clear distinction between the scientist and the subject being studied. Understanding oneself is intertwined with understanding the subject, and it does not lead to laws-like statements.
Appealing to tact and common sense, this text is focused on who we are, living in a specific historical context of practice and understanding. Benedict de Spinoza, another philosopher who influenced early modern hermeneutics, suggests in the seventh chapter of the Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670) that understanding the most dense and difficult parts of the Holy Scriptures requires keeping the historical horizon and the mind of their authors in mind.
Spinoza argues that there is a similarity between how we comprehend nature and how we comprehend the Scriptures. In both instances, our understanding of the various components relies on our understanding of a greater entirety, which can only be comprehended based on the components. When considered from a broader viewpoint, this hermeneutic circle, the process of going back and forth between the text’s components and its whole, emerges as a significant theme in interpretation. Anything that is not immediately clear can be interpreted through philological analysis.
The study of history is essential for understanding hermetic meaning and language-use. Luther, Vico, and Spinoza each contributed to modern hermeneutics, focusing on subjective piety, the science of man, and historical aspects of understanding. However, none of these thinkers developed a comprehensive philosophical theory or a method with binding rules for interpretation.
Johann Martin Chladenius originally created a theory in his Einleitung zur richtigen Auslegung vernunftiger Reden und Schriften (1742) that differentiates hermeneutics from logic and presents a classification of perspectives. This approach, influenced by Leibniz and Wolf’s School Philosophy, allows Chladenius to explain how variations in our perception of phenomena and problems can complicate our interpretation of other people’s texts and statements.
At stake is not a conventional historical methodology, but rather a didactic and cognitively focused interpretation process. To fully comprehend something that appears initially unfamiliar or unclear—Chladenius identifies various aspects of confusion—one must consider the unspoken and pre-reflective assumptions that underpin the perspective from which the challenging text or statement originated. Only through this approach can we achieve a genuine and unbiased comprehension of the topic.
Hermeneutics and epistemology are closely linked. Chladenius, an important figure in 20th century hermeneutics, connects the search for truth and the search for understanding. In the Leibniz-Wolffian paradigm, another philosopher named Georg Friedrich Meier focuses on signs in general. This includes all types of signs, whether verbal or non-verbal.
In his work titled Versuch einer Allgemeinen Auslegungskunst (1757), Meier argues that the meaning of signs is determined by their position within a larger linguistic context, rather than a specific non-semiotic meaning or intention. The interdependence of hermeneutics and language is the key contribution of Meier to this field. He introduces the concept of semantic holism where linguistic obscurities are resolved by referring to language itself, instead of relying on elements outside of language like the author’s intention [21]. Two other important figures in the early beginnings of modern hermeneutics are Friedrich Ast and Friedrich August Wolf. In 1808, Ast published his Grundlinien der Grammatik, Hermeneutik und Kritik. As a skilled classicist and student of Friedrich Schelling, he aimed to develop a methodology capable of capturing the entirety of world-historical spirit. According to Ast, individual utterances should be understood based on their position within world-history rather than solely in relation to their author or within the semiotic system.
This text suggests that Ast and Wolf, both trained in Classical studies, believe in the possibility of combining a synthetic and an analytic approach. Ast focuses on the whole and the relationships between the parts, while Wolf extends this concept to include the text’s relationship to historical tradition and culture.
Both his Museum der Altertumswissenschaft (1807) and his Vorlesungen uber die Enzyklopadie der Altertumswissenschaft (1831) delve into the philosophical aspects of classical philology. According to Wolf, classical studies strive for a comprehensive understanding of its subject matter, while also contemplating the value of this knowledge and the methods employed in attaining it. Nonetheless, when interpreting ancient texts, hermeneutic knowledge requires not only a broad examination of culture, but also an appreciation for the author’s individuality.
Wolf’s establishment of philology as a methodological discipline, which incorporated both the collective cultural framework and individuality, positioned him as a significant precursor in the field of romantic hermeneutics [23]. The history of hermeneutics dates back to ancient Greece, but it gained renewed attention during the modern period, particularly in Germany. This resurgence was a consequence of the Reformation, which shifted the responsibility for interpreting the Bible from the Church to individual Christians [23].
Both the idea that modern hermeneutics in Germany originated with Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher in the early nineteenth century and the notion that it blossomed with Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer in the twentieth century are somewhat common but conflicting views. However, I find both of these views to be deeply misguided, especially the latter. Instead, I propose a different perspective: there has indeed been significant progress in hermeneutics since the eighteenth century. This progress, however, does not involve the establishment of a comprehensive hermeneutical system or a philosophical hermeneutics. Rather, it entails the gradual accumulation of specific insights into the nature of interpretation and its extent and importance.
The progress in hermeneutics has been primarily driven by thinkers who may not be the first to come to mind when thinking of this subject. While Schleiermacher and Gadamer are commonly associated with hermeneutics, there are other influential thinkers who are often overlooked. These include Johann August Ernesti, Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Schlegel, Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as more recent figures like John Langshaw Austin and Quentin Skinner. To provide a comprehensive overview of modern hermeneutics, we will examine the ideas of these prominent thinkers in roughly chronological order and offer some critical evaluation. Among these thinkers, Johann August Ernesti (1707-81) played a significant role in the development of hermeneutics in Germany.
Ernesti’s Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti of 1761 marks a significant shift in hermeneutics by moving away from solely focusing on the Bible to a more encompassing approach. This work greatly impacted prominent German hermeneutical figures like Herder and Schleiermacher, who held it in high regard. Even today, there are numerous valuable insights that can still be gained from reading Ernesti’s work. Notably, Ernesti takes five crucial steps in the field of hermeneutics.
The author initially asserts that the interpretation of the Bible should be approached in the same manner as any other text. However, he fails to consistently adhere to this principle. Although he rejects the idea of a divinely inspired interpreter, he still assumes that the Bible, as the word of God, is inherently true and internally cohesive. This differs from his perspective on secular texts. Nonetheless, Herder and Schleiermacher ultimately embrace this principle in a more complete and consistent manner.
Ernesti identifies two main obstacles that he sees in the interpretation process. Firstly, different languages have distinct conceptual resources. Secondly, an author’s concepts often differ significantly from those of their background language. This two-fold obstacle has been adopted and further emphasized by Herder and Schleiermacher in their theories.
The main idea of this passage is that both authors emphasize the dangers of interpreting a text by falsely assimilating its concepts and beliefs to one’s own or to those already familiar. They also agree that linguistic interpretation should be supplemented by an understanding of the author’s psychology in order to grasp their unique conceptualization. Additionally, Ernesti argues that word meanings rely on linguistic usage, making interpretation a matter of determining how words are used. This belief eventually evolves into the stronger claim that meaning is derived from word usage, which is shared by Herder, Johann Georg Hamann, and Schleiermacher.
Ernesti’s thesis served as a starting point for future scholars to explore additional tasks required for interpretation, such as understanding authorial psychology. Unlike the prevailing practice of solely examining the text, Ernesti argued that interpretation must also consider the historical, geographical, and other contextual aspects of the text. Herder, Schleiermacher, and August Boeckh later embraced this viewpoint in their own hermeneutical theories.
Fifthly, Ernesti emphasizes the importance of holism in interpretation. According to him, the individual parts of a text should be understood in relation to the entire text, and both should be understood in the context of the author’s larger body of work and other related texts. This holistic approach is especially crucial for gathering enough evidence to accurately determine word usage and meanings. Later scholars like Herder, Friedrich Ast, and Schleiermacher would further expand on this principle of holism.
Herder emphasizes the importance of considering the author’s historical context and psychology. This principle of holism presents the problem of the “hermeneutical circle.” If interpreting parts of a text requires interpreting the whole, and vice versa, how can interpretation be accomplished?
Both Herder and Schleiermacher in their works in the Critical Forests provide a solution to the problem of understanding a text by suggesting that understanding comes in degrees. They propose that one can interpret the parts of a text sequentially with some level of adequacy, leading to a measure of understanding of the entire text. This initial understanding can then be used to refine one’s understanding of the individual parts, ultimately refining understanding of the whole text. This iterative process of interpretation has the potential to continue indefinitely. Therefore, hermeneutics is an ongoing process that involves both defining the nature of interpretation and exploring its scope and significance. [27]
