Motives, Intentions and the Interpretation of Texts

Abstract

several of contributions to this issue on interpretation: whether it is possible to lay down any general rules about how to interpret a literary text. To raise this question, however, presupposes that one is clear both about what is meant by process of interpretation, and why it is necessary to undertake this process at all. I shall begin, therefore, briefest possible consideration of these two prior questions, as a preliminary to my main discussion. The first question is: What is interpretation? The term, as Professor Aiken has complained, is used with abominable looseness by critics and philosophers of art. It is properly employed, he insists, only reference to the activities of a critic in paraphrasing, describing, explaining, explicating, analysing and like.'' If this is accepted, however, then term has in fact been used a fair degree of clarity and agreement by contributors to this present symposium. As Hirsch puts it, to interpret a text is to construe it to mean something. Or as Bloomfield puts it, if we interpret a work of art, we are seeking its significance. Two caveats are in order here. We must be careful to avoid vulgarity-which philosophers of art are much more prone to than practising critics-of supposing that we can ever hope to arrive at the correct of a text,2 such that any rival readings can then be ruled out.3 We must also be careful not to assume that business of interpretation need always be entirely a reading process. (Hristic has some valuable cautionary remarks on this point in his essay on drama.) With these caveats in mind,