Literary Theory Today

Discussion

DISCUSSION OF ELINOR SHAFFER'S PAPER Rodney Davey: You may find it startling if 1 st治rt off by saying that 1 entirely agree with your paper. Let me explaín what 1 mean. Within the limited scope of your paper, you show cogent1y and admirab勻 the sources and development of hermeneutics. You show, for înstance, how hermeneutics arose out of the critìcal movement in the eighteenth century whìch was preoccupied with Biblìcal exegesis. You show that there is a direct relatîon between this and Schlegel's concept of irony. You rightly say, 1 think, that BibJical exe在esis is "implìcated in the development of the history of criticism from the very beginning." You draw attention to the near simultaneity of Spinoza's work and that of 說 abillon and Rìchard Sìmon, themselves closely linked with the ironic mode of writing. It is doubt1ess right to identify the sources of irony in Bayle and Reimarus to say that "the development of an independent historìcal criterion for the assessment of Biblical narrative powerful1y assisted in the establishment of rea1istic fiction. • • ." • Certainly one could add to what you say. 1 suppose there must be a 1ink between humour and irony, Chaucer and the fabliaux tradition? In any case, one would, in a more exhaustive account, w剖1t to mention such people as Sh犯ftesbury， Diderot, Voltaire and even Kierkegaard. But whatever one did, it seems to me that the overall picture you give would remain more or less unaltered. It is surely very convincinεto bring together statements like Strauss' "To all be!ief not built on demonstration, doubt is inherent" and SchJeg訟's "Man muss derselbe und doch ein anderer se恥， um jemand characterisieren zu kδnnen." To identify doubt with irony, and both with Jauss's ideas concerning "self岫understallding" and his insistence on the "creative function" in the reconstruction of history, as opposed to "the inert quality of traditional historicity, its un悍 questioned assumption of 'objective reaHty' " again looks wholly acceptable. 244 All the same, 1 have a quibble. lt is this: your paper shows a conspicuous lack of irony! Consider your own language (I choose more or less at random, because 必 random sample is likely to be more characteristic, perhaps) : "Philosophical hermeneutics since its inception by 5chleiermacher has had a peculiarJy intimate yet challenging relation to historical understanding." How am 1 to take this7 Either: the origin of philosophical herrneneutics 主 5chleiermacher. Or: 1 be1ieve, or we might as well believe for the sake of convenience, that 5chleiermacher marks the beginning of hermeneutics. Evident1y the first statement is the stronger. It may be contested by later historians, but for the moment it offers itself as a truth.τhe second is weaker in that it alludes to a kind of arbitrariness ln the be1ief, or to the possibiJity of subsequent correction騙峙as if the information were incomplete--or even to the possibility of another, equally justifiable, account of the beginnings of hermeneutics. This brings me then to the heart of one aspect of hermeneutics : the reJativity of truth between historical periods of which this "wirkungsgeschichtJiche ßewußtsein" should, according to Jauss, show itseJf to be aware棚-through irony. Irony is the unidentical twin of Cartesian doubt, of which (as you know) f am a devoted disciple! 50 how is it that 1 take your side against the hermeneuticists? 1 have many reasons, some of which would probably make my partia1ities more ambivaJent than they are goin莖 to seem here, but one reason will have to do. On the very s1mplest level 1t appers re訟sonable to suppose that there is a causal process in history. 1 do not mean that one cause necessari1y means one effect, nor that there are no or1gins, nor that we can dig out causes like pot-shards. The supposition, however, produces a concept of plausibi1ity or probability• We 的k ourselves "What were the probable causes of • • • 7" ; "Is it plausible to believe that • • • 7" In this we can accept the possibility of error, of error that may never ever be discovered, but if many support the theory，主 no better theory is forthcoming , then why not take the ascription of this, or tha~， cause as 11旱。od"? Why 豆豆豆 S念y ， as you say, "Phi1osophical hermeneutics since its inception by 5chleiermacher 恆心旦旦. • • ?"而at 1s, tak1n惡 2句 5 the stronger of the two statements mentioned above. Sure勻， there is a...