FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2117715425> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2117715425 endingPage "703" @default.
• W2117715425 startingPage "683" @default.
• W2117715425 abstract "The Hermeneutical Turn in American Critical Theory, 1830–1860 M. D. Walhout Long considered an obscure province of biblical studies, hermeneutics is now familiar territory to American literary critics, along with phenomenology, structuralism, post-structuralism, and the other European theories that have redrawn the map of American criticism in the past twenty-five years. The gradual transformation of hermeneutics into a theory of criticism, and ultimately into a comprehensive theory of the human sciences, was the work of a series of great German thinkers, including Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. These figures were introduced (or reintroduced) to American critics by E. D. Hirsch, whose Validity in Interpretation (1967) “shattered,” in the words of Richard E. Palmer, “the splendid isolation of American literary criticism from hermeneutics.” Hailing Schleiermacher and Dilthey as the forefathers of “objective interpretation,” Hirsch dismissed Heidegger and Gadamer as prophets of subjectivism. For his part, Palmer strove to vindicate Heidegger and Gadamer as the true heirs of the hermeneutical tradition. Noting the difference between Hirsch’s understanding of hermeneutics and theirs, Palmer concluded, So the hermeneutical debate goes on. On the one side are the defenders of objectivity and validation, who look to hermeneutics as the theoretical source for norms of validation; on the other side are the phenomenologists of the event of understanding, who stress the historical character of this “event,” and consequently the limitations of all claims to “objective knowledge” and “validity.” 1 Twenty-five years later this hermeneutical debate is still going on. [End Page 683] What Hirsch and Palmer did not realize is that they were reviving a debate over the nature of interpretation that dated from the late nineteenth century, when American literary criticism was undergoing professionalization. 2 As early as 1885, in the programmatic introduction to his book on Shakespeare as a dramatic artist, Richard G. Moulton had declared, “In the treatment of literature the proposition which seems to stand most in need of assertion at the present moment is, that there is an inductive science of literary criticism.” Moulton proceeded to lay down “a foundation axiom of inductive literary criticism: Interpretation in literature is of the nature of a scientific hypothesis, the truth of which is tested by the degree of completeness with which it explains the details of the literary work as they actually stand.” 3 Thirty years later Moulton repeated this axiom, insisting that “such inductive treatment constitutes the very alphabet of science.” 4 But Moulton’s determination to apply the logic of the natural sciences to the interpretation of literature was not without its critics. In 1900 the German-born philologist Julius Goebel began a valiant, if futile, effort to introduce the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher and Dilthey to his American colleagues. 5 Years later, in an article published in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Goebel drew on Schleiermacher’s Hermeneutik und Kritik (1838) to show “the possibility of attaining exact knowledge in the mental sciences without the aid of the scientific or laboratory methods.” 6 Later still, in an article on Dilthey published in the same journal, Goebel recalled how he had argued in an address to the Modern Language Association that criticism “had lost touch with the contemporary movements emphasizing the independence and importance of the mental sciences. What seemed to me needed above all was a reform of the method of interpretation for which Dilthey had set the example both in principle and practice.” 7 It was not until the late 1960s that Goebel’s project was finally revived. While Goebel may have been the first American literary scholar to use the word “hermeneutics,” the concept of interpretation had long been a part of American critical theory. In fact, what might be called the “hermeneutical turn” in American critical theory occurred well before the era of professionalization. [End Page 684] In order to trace this turn, we must recover the work of the amateur critical theorists of the antebellum era, including such forgotten figures as George Allen and Edwin Percy Whipple. Disciples of the Schlegels and Coleridge, these amateur theorists established the basic premises of the hermeneutical turn: that criticism is a science; that the critic must “reproduce” the author’s creative process; that..." @default.
• W2117715425 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2117715425 creator A5071533882 @default.
• W2117715425 date "1996-01-01" @default.
• W2117715425 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2117715425 title "The Hermeneutical Turn in American Critical Theory, 1830-1860" @default.
• W2117715425 cites W1488689545 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W1506752546 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W1552078870 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W1994680723 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W1996563288 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W2051539174 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W2052608836 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W2088063349 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W2148361709 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W2158340125 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W598896975 @default.
• W2117715425 cites W633129242 @default.
• W2117715425 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.1996.0041" @default.
• W2117715425 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W2117715425 type Work @default.
• W2117715425 sameAs 2117715425 @default.
• W2117715425 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2117715425 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2117715425 hasAuthorship W2117715425A5071533882 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C142932270 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C154949211 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C198293453 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C2482559 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C42248794 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C50379869 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConcept C84269361 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C111472728 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C124952713 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C138885662 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C142362112 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C142932270 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C154949211 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C198293453 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C2482559 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C41895202 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C42248794 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C50379869 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C527412718 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C7991579 @default.
• W2117715425 hasConceptScore W2117715425C84269361 @default.
• W2117715425 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2117715425 hasLocation W21177154251 @default.
• W2117715425 hasOpenAccess W2117715425 @default.
• W2117715425 hasPrimaryLocation W21177154251 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W103666505 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W2043323689 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W2068931236 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W2117715425 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W2150903714 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W2373931940 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W3086239208 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W4313589092 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W595225679 @default.
• W2117715425 hasRelatedWork W618635064 @default.
• W2117715425 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W2117715425 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2117715425 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2117715425 magId "2117715425" @default.
• W2117715425 workType "article" @default.