The Contribution
of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) To the development of
Hermeneutics
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher
(1768 - 1834) SOSC 201 VINTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGYV UESSAY 1U [CRAIG POVEY[
Lecturer : Bob Tristram. Office: 83
Fairlie Terrace, Room 313. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher B orn nov. 21,
1768 Breslau died feb. 12,
1834 Berlin Philosopher, theologian,
pastor. As both of Schleiermacher´s parents came from vicarages, it was hardly
surprising that he took up
theology, too, at first at the seminary
of the Brüdergemeine in Barby (near Magdeburg), then at the university of
Halle. He passed his exam in
1790. Afterwards he worked as private
tutor and curate. In 1796 he came to Berlin, where he met the leading
personalities of the Berlin Romantic
movement. A fter an unhappy love affair
he left the city in 1802. In 1804 he became professor at the university of
Würzburg, before moving on to
Halle in October. There he met Henrik
Steffens, who became famous in 1813, when he incited his students to take to
arms against Napoleon´s
troops in the liberation wars. I n 1807
Schleiermacher returned to Berlin, where he had great influence in the founding
of the Berlin University. In
1809 he became pastor of the
Dreifaltigkeits-Kirche (Trinity church), professor at the university in 1810,
in 1818 finally rector. Since 1811 he was
a member of the Akademie der
Wissenschaften (Academy of Sciences). H e was very active in church politics,
where he helped creating the
Union of Protestant churches and worked
towards a constitution of the synod. This put him into opposition to the
government. Around 40,000
people took part at his funeral. His
grave is on Dreifaltigkeits-Friedhof (Trinity cemetery). Works: About Religion.
Speeches for the Educated
among its Critics. (1799) Secret Letters
about Lucinde. (1800) Christian Faith, after the Principles of the Protestant
Church. (1821-22)
Information sourced
from:(GBBB.Berlin@t-online.de 1997ã) "Understanding...is grasping the
point or meaning of what is being done or said. This
is a notion far removed from the world
of statistics and casual laws: it is closer to the realm of discourse and to
the internal relations that link the
parts of ...a discourse."[pg 115:
Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, Routledge
& Kegan Paul, London,1958.]
This is what hermeneutics is -
understanding and the complexities behind this art form. Some would belief that
hermeneutics itself is the art of
understanding. In discussing
Schleiermacher’s contribution to the development of hermeneutics, this essay
will first attempt to define these
complexities, the word hermeneutics, and
understand how this art form has emerged. In understanding hermeneutics, one
must also look at
Schleiermacher, his theory itself and
how he arose to create the first real set of rules for this kind of
understanding - a framework.
Schleiermacher’s theory was considered a
radical break from tradition, one new aspect was his creation of a distinction
between the speaker and
the interpreter in his explanation of
how hermeneutics worked. This radical side to Schleiermacher’s theory created
some historical debates on the
subject, a discussion of these debates
will be used to highlight some of the problem areas in Schleiermacher’s work.
However the main focus of
this essay will be how Shleiermacher’s
theory created a new approach to the concept of the process of understanding,
and how various theorists
have reacted to his works. Derived from
the Greek words ‘hermenuein’ (verb) meaning ‘to say’, ‘to explain’, or ‘to
translate’, and the word
‘hermeneia’(noun) meaning ‘explain’ or
interpretation. [Holub, Robert. Selden Raman (Ed)1995ã] One twentieth century
philosopher Paul Rocher
claims that hermeneutics can be traced
back to Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias and in this classical work hermeneutics is
a general theory of
comprehension [Rocher, Paul 1974ã].
However traditionally, hermeneutics has evolved from a methodology in dealing
with the interpretation of
text and exegesis to a complex and in
depth science. Prior to the Romantic era hermeneutics was defined into three
main areas of interest outlined
by Robert Holub; Biblical exegesis which
was primarily concerned with applying rules in dealing with the interpretation
of the Old Testament and
the Torah and can be associated with
such writers as Augistine and Origenes. In biblical exegesis the hermeutic
consisted of a literal interpretation
of the text and focuses on a higher
source or almost mystical approach to exegesis interpretation. This approach to
hermeneutics was to be
challenged by Protestant theorists
(including Schleiermacher) whom believed that texts should not be associated
with such mystical
assumptions.[Holub, Robert. Selden,
Raman (Ed)1995ã] The second main area of interest was during the Renaissance
period when there was an
attempt to form a consistent
interpretation to the code of Justinian (Ad 533). This secular life legal
hermeneutic was used in carrying out justice
from general laws where by judges have
to interpret their meanings as they apply to specific instances. This form of
interpretation is still used today
in one form or another. [Holub, Robert.
Seldon, Raman (Ed)1995ã] The third area of interest I wish to introduce is that
of philological
hermeneutics. Originating from the
Alexandrian School and focusing on the interpretation methodology of Homer.
Philological hermeneutics was
concerned with the authentic
reconstruction of texts. This was instigated by a concern with the preservation
and understanding of classical
heritage.[Holub, Robert. Seldon, Raman
(Ed)1995ã]. The most influential period in the formation of modern hermeneutics
was during the
Romantic period (late eighteenth century
to mid nineteenth century). This marked the beginning of new ideas and
approaches to hermeneutics as
theologians, philologists and
philosophers began to question the methodology of classical theorists and their
approach to interpreting texts and
exegesis’s as new ideas began to arise.
One influential philologist-theologian that emerged from this period was
Friedrich Daniel Ernst
Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Attributed
as being ‘the founder of modern Protestant theology’ and ‘the founder of modern
hermeneutics’
Schleiermacher’s interest in
hermeneutics began with his associations with fellow romantic thinker Friedrich
Schlegel. Schlegel was the first to
apply principles of transcendental
idealism to literature with his Philosophy of Philology.[Kurt Mueller-Vollmer
1986ã]. This influenced
Schleiermacher to embark upon a quest
into the realm of hermeneutic theory. Schleiermacher’s theory represents the
first true attempt to form a
frame-work for understanding as a specific
hermeneutic. Schleiermacher did this by critically uniting the hermeneutic
traditions in Protestant
theology and the rhetorical and
philological traditions of classical scholarship with the new transcendental
approach inherited from Kant and Fichte
[Muller-Vollmer, Kurt (Ed) 1985ã].
Schleiermacher`s theory focus’s on grammar and style and in keeping with his
religious concern for themes
and from this he created a general
hermeneutics with principles independent of traditional interpretational
principles [Shleiermacher, F. Kimmerle,
H. (Ed) Winter, Carl. 1959ã].
Schleiermacher achieved this by comparing the reader’s approach to a text with
the contributions by both the
author and reader in a dialogue to
understand each other [Thompson, JB. (1981ã] He depicted the dialogue in terms
of a speaker (author) who
puts together words to express his/her
thoughts and a listener (reader) who can comprehend the words and sentences
because they are drawn
from the vocabulary of a shared language
and follow its grammatical rules. The listener can also recognise the
intentions behind the words by being
in the same situation and sharing a
common human nature with the speaker [jcma@ai.mit.edu,1994ã]. This theory forms
the basis for the idea of
Schleiermacher to ‘understand what is
spoken’ and this basis of understanding can be applied and modified to all
texts as Palmer writes;
Schleiermacher outlines in the opening
of his lectures in 1819: "This art of understanding is in essence the same
whether the text is a legal
document, a religious Scripture, or a
work of literature.......Each discipline develops theoretical tools for its
particular problems, differences lie with
the fundamental unity"
Schleiermacher went on to clarify this theory in relation to all texts by
stating: "The texts are in a language and thus grammar
is used to find the meaning of a
sentence; a general idea interacts with the grammatical structure to form the
meaning, no matter what the type of
document. If the principles of all
understanding are formulated, these would comprise a general
hermeneutics." [Palmer, Richard E. 1969ã] This
formulation of understanding outlined by
Schleiermacher attempts to empathise with the speaker as well as analysing the
language of the text in
relation to the speaker (author).
Schleiermacher’s interpretation of text is therefor, built upon (as outlined)
understanding and has a grammatical, as
well as a psychological moment.
Schleiermacher’s theory of understanding places the text within a particular
literature (or language) and in return
uses the text to redefine the character
of that literature. The psychological aspect of understanding enables the
listener (reader) to reconstruct and
understand the motives and assumptions
within the text. Schleiermacher was the first to recognise this concept of
‘understanding what is spoken’
as Palmer wrote: ‘Schleiermacher was the
first to theorise this fundamental distinguishing of speaking and understanding
and formed the basis for a
new direction in hermeneutics in the
theory of understanding.’ He went on to say: "Take the act of
understanding as its starting point then
hermeneutics becomes the ‘art of
understanding" [Palmer, Richard E. 1969ã]. This theory for its time was
viewed as rather radical and there were
many opposing parties concerned with up
holding the classical hermeneutic methodology which was viewed as ‘dogmatic’ by
Schleiermacher. One
such opponent was Friedrich August Wolf
as Palmer writes; "Friedrich August Wolf asserted that a different
hermeneutic was needed for history,
poetry, religious texts, and by
extension for subvarieties within each classification". Palmer went on
further to say; "Wolf viewed hermeneutics in a
practical scene - A body of wisdom for
meeting specific problems of interpretation. Tailored to a particular
linguistic and historical difficulties
posed by ancient texts in Hebrew, Greek and
Latin." [Palmer, Richard 1969ã] Wolf’s theory was in keeping with the norm
of the time and is seen
by Palmer as a theory purely to assist
in the translation of ancient texts. Wolf’s theory was that general
hermeneutics did not allow the use of
specific methodology for a supposedly -
privileged text such as the Bible. The only allowance made for a specific
content consists in the variegated
use made of the methods approved by the
science of hermeneutics. [Bleicher, Josef 1980ã] Schleiermacher’s theory
opposed this as it seeks to
specify specific interpretational
methodology to all texts. The theory that one needs to understand what is
spoken makes Schleiermacher’s
hermeneutic revolutionary.
Schleiermacher viewed the traditional hermeneutics that is based upon general
reasoning as unacceptable. Palmer
outlines this view; "Hermeneutics
was held by Schleiermacher to be related to the concrete existing, acting human
being in the process of
understanding dialogue. When we start
with the conditions that pertain to all dialogue, when then turn away form
rationalism, metaphysics and
morality and examine the concrete,
actual situation involved in understanding, then we have hermeneutics a
starting point for a viable hermeneutics
that can serve as a core for special
hermeneutics." [Palmer 1969ã]. This is one of the main contributions by
Schleiermacher in the development of
hermeneutics, a new approach to the
concept of the process of understanding. Understanding is now seen as Josef
Bleicher writes; "as a process
of creative reformulation and
reconstruction. Based upon the two traditions followed by Schleiermacher of
transcendental philosophy and
romanticism, Schleiermacher used these
traditions to derived a form of questioning the possibility of a valid
interpretation." Josef Bleicher goes on
to write; "This concept of
questioning the possibility of a valid interpretation led Schleiermacher to the
discovery of the hermeneutical law that
every thought of the author has to be
related to the unity of an active and organically developing subject".
Bleicher went on to say; "This
relationship between the individuality
and the totality became the focal point of romanticist hermeneutics.[Bleicher,
Josef 1980ã] This systematic
form of interpretation developed by
Schleiermacher and outlined by Josef Bleicher contains two parts: The
grammatical (outlined previously) and
the psychological. With regards to the
psychological aspect of interpretation Bleicher writes: "Schleiermacher’s
development of a system for
psychological interpretation center
around the investigation of the emergence of thought from within the totality
of an author’s life. The use of these
hermeneutical rules allows for the
understanding of the meaning of a given text." Bleicher went on further to
outline a claim made by Schleiermacher
that the benefit to hermeneutics of this
new approach; "Given adequate historical and linguistic knowledge, the
interpreter is in a position to
understand the author better than he/she
had understood him/herself." [Bleicher, Josef 1980ã] One famous writer on
this subject Hans-Georg
Gadamer critically attributes
Schleiermacher’s theory to the differentiation of understanding and
misunderstanding, in which the interpretation is
seen to begin this process of
understanding within his or her own misunderstandings. [Gadamer, Hans-Georg
1989ã] This critical analysis of
Schleiermacher’s reciprocal approach is
clarified by Chris Lang; "The interpreter brings into the text his or her
own set of presuppositions which
cause him or her to misunderstand the
text. The hermeneutical method was intended to secure a right understanding of
the text preconceived
understandings or misunderstandings.
Thus there is a recognition that the mind does not necessarily act as a mirror
reflecting exactly what is in the
text."[Lang, Chris. 19??ã] On a more
positive side Chris Lang viewed Schleiermacher’s method of validation as more
sophisticated than his
predecessors. From this perspective the
discipline of hermeneutics gradually moves from a methodological approach to
the text toward the
modern conception that hermeneutics is
what happens when we interpret a text or how one comes to understand.[Lang,
Chris 19??ã] Another
major contribution by Schleiermacher to
the development of hermeneutics was not actually made by Schleiermacher
directly but by a student and
avid follower of his work Whilhem
Dilthey (1833-1911). Josef Bleicher addresses the importance of
Schleiermacher’s methodology in relation to
the work done by Dilthey; "In
retrospect, Schleiermacher’s stature in the history of hermeneutics rests
mainly on the impetus with which it had
provided Dilthey’s thinking."
Bleicher goes on to outline this impact on hermeneutics; "Within the span
of fifty years hermeneutics developed from a
system of interpretation relevant for
theology and philology only into the methodology of a new science:
Geisteswissenschaften. It claim to provide
the precondition for all understanding
shifted to the securing of ‘objectivity’ in the methodical reconstructions of
historical events - and to provide
the foundation on which the positivist
incursion into the territory of the mind and its manifestations could be
repelled" [Bleicher, Josef 1980ã]. The
importance Dilthey’s Work following on
from Schleiermacher is important in that Dilthey applied Schleiermacher’s
hermeneutics to all texts.
Dilthey actually set into practice the
theory proposed by Schleiermacher. Dilthey went on to form the hermeneutic
circle implementing
Schleiermacher’s principle of
understanding as a reconstructive process as Jcma@ai.mit.edu writes; "In
keeping with Schleiermacher’s
hermeneutics.....Understanding
(verstehen), the basis for methodological hermeneutics, involving a circle from
texts to the author’s biography and
immediate historical circumstances and
back again.......Interpretation, or the systematic application of understanding
to the text, reconstructs the
world in which the text was produced and
places the text in that world". Jcma@ai.mit.edu went on further to outline
the importance of this; "This
circular process precludes and
interpretation of a text being unique and scientifically objective, like the
explanation of a chemical reaction, in as
much as the knowledge of the author’s or
agent’s world may itself critically depend upon the present
interpretation." [jcma@ai.mit.edu 1994ã]
Here on can see Schleiermacher’s theory
in the identification of understanding as empathy secured by the notion of a
common human nature
implemented by Dilthey. The importance
of Dilthey’s work following on from Schleiermacher is important in the
development of hermeneutics as
Jcma@ai.mit.edu writes; "Broadening
Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics, Dilthey developed a philosophy of method for
history and the human
sciences that he believed could produce
objective knowledge but avoid the reductionist, mechanistic, historical
explanatory schema of the natural
sciences......Dilthey argued that texts,
verbal utterances, art and actions were meaningful expositions whose ‘mental
contents’ or intentions needed
to be comprehended" Jcma@ai.mit.edu
went on to enforce Dilthy’s claim; "He claimed that investigating human interactions
was more like
interpreting a poem or discourse, than
doing physics or chemistry experiments.....Dilthey termed the desired
comprehension of events and
expressions ‘understanding’(verstehen)
and attempted to distinguish it from the explanatory knowledge (erkennen)
generated by the
hypothetico-deductive method of the
natural sciences." [jcma@ai.mit.edu 1994ã] The significance of Dilthey’s
work in relation to
Schleiermacher’s methodology is
important in the overall contribution to hermeneutics because it is Dilthey
whom uses Schleiermacher’s
hermeneutics and sets out to apply it to
all areas of interpretation. Also it is Dilthey’s attention to Schleiermacher’s
hermeneutic methodology that
ensured Schleiermacher place as one of
the founders of modern hermeneutics. However the overall significance and
contribution of
Schleiermacher’s project of a general
hermeneutics is best outlined by Richard Palmer; "Regardless of the
psychologising element in the later
Schleiermacher, his contribution to
hermeneutics marks a turning point in its history. For hermeneutics is no
longer seen as a specifically disciplinary
matter belonging to theology,
literature, or law; it is the art of understanding any utterances of language.
[Palmer 1969ã]. REFERENCES
___________________________________________________ Bleicher, Josef
(1980ã) ‘Contemporary Hermeneutics’. Published by
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pages: 14,
15, 16. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1989ã) ‘Truth And Method’ 2nd Edition. Published
by Crossroad
Publishing US. Page: 185. Holub, Roberts
& Selden, Raman (Ed) (1995ã) ‘The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism’.
Published by The
Cambridge University Press. Pages 255,
256. Lang, Chris (19??ã) ‘A Brief History Of Literary Theory II’ Meaning; The
movement from author
to reader. Published by (Unknown) Page
1. Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt (1986ã) ‘The Hermeneutics Reader’. Published by Basil
Blackwell Ltd. Page
72. jcma@ai.mit.edu (1994ã) ‘The
Methodological Hermeneutics of Schleiermacher and Dilthey’. Published by Nikos
Drakos, Computer Based
Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Palmer, Richard (1969ã) ‘Hermeneutics’. Published by Northwestern University
Press. Pages 85, 86, 94.
Ricoeur, Paul (1974ã) ‘The Conflict
Between interpretations’. Published by Northwestern University Press. Page 4.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich,
Kummerle, H (Ed) & Winter,
Carl.(1959ã) ‘Hermeneutic’. Published by Universitatsverlag, Heidelburg.
Thompson, JB (1981ã) ‘Critical
Hermeneutics’ Published by Cambridge
University Press. Page 37.
Word Count: 2980
No comments:
Post a Comment