Carlos G. Tee (鄭永康)摘要

March, 2010

On Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics

        Both “The Hermeneutics: Outline of the 1819 Lectures” and “General Hermeneutics” reveal Freidrich D. E. Schleiermacher's seminal efforts to systematize the hermeneutic rules that have been adopted by ancient exegetes in the hermeneutica sacra. Despite the brevity of these instructions, they have helped shape the development of hermeneutics over the last two centuries or so.

        Schleiermacher, who was a Protestant pastor, not only tried to devise a systematic methodology of hermeneutics but furthermore gave a more universal (or more mundane) scope to his proposed methodology by its application in other fields other than biblical exegesis.

        Schleiermacher's hermeneutics differs from the others in its amalgamation of two distinct but closely intertwined approaches: the grammatical and the psychological (not in the current sense of the word). The propositions in his methodology reveal his deep analysis of how we think and understand a text or a discourse, as well as its limitations and possibilities.

        As the object of hermeneutics is always linguistic or “textual,” his emphasis on grammatical analysis is only natural and logical, but realizing the inherent limitations of language in carrying meaning across, his adoption of the psychological mode--which tries to capture the creative process in its original, historical horizon--becomes a necessary ‘accomplice” to elicit the right interpretation.

        Working like a pair of chopsticks, these two modes take care of different aspects or scopes of interpretation. The grammatical takes charge of common linguistics characteristics in the object, while the psychological (sometimes, technical or divinatory) addresses the writer's message and its underlying creative psychology (74). One cannot function properly without the other.

        The relationship between the grammatical and the psychological is not static but dynamic since each one cannot lead to a complete understanding by itself, and therefore, “it is necessary to move back and forth” (76) between the two sides. Each one supplements the other in an endless process of comparison and contrasting before the reader arrives at a correct interpretation.

        In one of his propositions, which reads, “Precise understanding means that one grasps the easy parts of the meaning and uses them as a key for interpreting difficult parts” (81), one sees the early derivations of the hermeneutic circle. This, and other similar examples, illustrates that the influence of Schleiermacher in the development of hermeneutics and literary studies has been far reaching.

        In explaining the psychological mode, Schleiermacher says that “before the art of hermeneutics can be practiced, the interpreter must put himself both objectively and subjectively in the position of the author” (83). This requires establishing affinity with the writer and must be carried out so as to arrive at the thought process at the instant of writing.

        Schleiermacher emphasizes an understanding of “the use of language common to the author and his original readers” (86), which he called “sphere.” This made him conclude that our grasp of the author's linguistic sphere, as contrasted to more organic aspects of the language, “implied that we understand the author better than he understood himself” (87).

        He cites linguistic competence and ability to know people as a must in interpretation. From this, he concludes that we make errors because of “an early mistake in understanding that continued unnoticed” (88) or because of linguistic incompetence.

        In grammatical analysis, Schleiermacher points out that words are never isolated because their meaning is derived from context (89), or what we now call syntagmatic function.

        In technical interpretation, he stresses a “complete understanding of [the author's] style” (95) which is a “laborious task” that calls for the use of secondary sources. He proposes that an author's distinctive traits may be identified by comparing him with others. And it is precisely through repeated comparisons and contrastive analysis of the linguistic and psychological sides that one properly accomplishes the interpretative act.

Works Cited

Schleiermacher, Freidrich D. E. “General Hermeneutics.” The Hermeneutics Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present. Ed. Kurt Mueller-Vollmer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 72-97.

---. “The Hermeneutics: Outline of the 1819 Lectures.” New Literary History 10.1 (1978): 1-16.