ill

IP''

ii

111

^'/PIllJP ■

SrfiV-

w,]V[. McPheeters

Interpretation

fej.'

^PM^

^^

r:-'

•?ife-

c

.v^.-

,^^>=«p«r%.*,f

BS47G .M17

I^^'

#-

Slodiai st'iiiV

BS47G .Mil

i^yrrs/

W. K. K

PART I. SECTION I.

INTERPRETATION— PART I. INTRODUCTION: IS A SCIENCE OF INTERPRETATION POSSIBLE?

PART I. SECTION I. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO A SATISFACTORY ANSWER.

Lecture I. Implications of Term "Science."

Prelim. Rem. 1. Two answers equally facile — and eq. worthless: (1) An indolent and uninformed — Yes; (2) And indolent and cynical — No. 2. Importance of ques. evidenced by statement of Galileo : "Hence it appears," he said, "that when we have to do with natural effects brought under our eyes by the experience of our senses, or deduced from abso- lute demonstrations, these can in nowise be called in ques- tion on the strength of Scripture texts that are susceptible of a thousand different interpretations, for the words of Scripture are not so strictly limited in their significance as the phenomena of nature."^ These words imply an irreme- diable ambiguity in SS. 3. An intelligent ans. presup- poses insight (1) into implications of term "science;" (2) into nature of subject matter with which interprtn. has to do; (3) into the problem thus presented to the interpreter.

I. Implications of Term "Science." 1. "Science is a body of truth relating to any well defined object, or class of objects, so arranged as to be easily comprehended and retained and conveniently used. The merits at which it aims are completeness, thoroughness and method. Its objects are the numberless things which nature furnishes for us to study. "^

ll'Quoted in Perry's Present Philosophical Tendencies, from Popular Science Monthly, vol. X, 1877, p. 389.|| ||-Bowen's Logic, p. 315.||

\y

2. "Science is knowledge arranged, classified and system- atized, with the end in view of arriving at an ultimate prin- ciple of unity. Science aims to be a unifier of knowledge. In this view the writer is disposed to concur with Mr. Herbert Spencer."^

3. "Science is regarded by Kant as an organism which grows from within, not as an aggregate which increases from without. A science, according to Kant, is a system of conceptions unified and distributed by a central and regu- lative idea ; or, in other words, a system organized on what he calls architectonic principles, or constituted by parts which possess an essential afifinity and can be deduced from one supreme and internal aim. The idea out of which a science is developed — which is the condition of its possi- bility, and which determines its form and end — is a constitu- ent element of reason ; and hence not only is each science a unity in itself, but all sciences are related to parts of one grand system of knowledge."*

What is involved in the statements of Girardeau and Flint is illustrated by doctrine of Evolution, as formulated by Mr. Herbert Spencer. "Evolution," says he, "is an integration of matter and a concomitant dissipation of motion ; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent homogeneity, and dur- ing which the retained motion undergoes a parallel trans- formation."^

4. "Generality, as opposed to mere particulars ; system, as opposed to random arrangement ; verification, as opposed to looseness of assumption or mere theorizing concur in that superior kind of knowledge dignified by the title of science."*'

5. " 'Scientific facts, unlike facts of mere contingency or incident, are truths of nature, Avhich, when once discovered, admit of repeated verification.' John Tulloch Lect. on

1 1 -Girardeau Dinrusaions of Philosophical Questions, p. 9.|| ipilobert Flint Classification of Sciences Presbyterian Review, vii., p. 483 (7/'86).||

W^First Prin. pt. ii, ch. 17, p. 396. Cited in Stand. Dict.\\ \\"Colvml>ia Enci/clopaecUa sul) Science.] |

Renan's Life of Christ; Lect. ii, p. 88, (Cited in Stand. Diet., sub voce.) (2) accurate; systematic; efficient; exact. "^

6. "Every science requires some means of investigation, some method of procedure which is more exact than the mere say so of common sense, and which can be used over and over again by different investigators under different conditions. This gives a high degree of verification and control of the results once obtained. The chemist has his icids, re-agents, and blow-pipes, etc. ; they constitute his instruments, and by using them, under certain constant rules, he keeps to a certain method. So with the physchol- ogist ; he has his miscroscope, his staining fluids, his means of stimulating the tissues of the body, etc. The physicist makes much of his lenses, and membranes, and electric bat- teries, and X-ray apparatus. In like manner it is necessary that the psychologist should have a recognized way of investigating the mind, which he can lay before anybody, saying. There, you see my results, you can get them for yourself by the same method that I used.'"^ Professor Bald- win, from whom the foregoing is cited, then adds, "In fulfill-

ng this requirement the psychologist resorts to two methods of procedure." These, he tells us, are Introspection, and Laboratory Experimentation.

7. Science. — "(1) Knowledge ; in partic. knowledge in the eminent sense, as the outcome of the systematic and trust- worthy functioning of the cognitive processes. Systematic co-ordination and certainty have, therefore, oft been speci- fied as notes of sc."^

Scientific Method. — "(1) The student's first step is to form a perf'ly definite and consistent idea of what the prob- lem really is, etc., etc. The second step will be to con- sider the logic and methodeutic of the research in hand. (2) The most vital factors in the meth. of mod. sc. have not ])een the foll'g of thisor that logical prescription — altho these have had their value too — but they have been the moral

W'Standard Dict.\\

IpBaldwin's Story of the Mind, p. 2. j|

W^Baldxain's Diet, of Psi/rholof/y and Philosophy, sub "Science."] |

features. First of these has been the genuine love of truth, and the conviction that nothing else could long endure. The next most vital factor of mod. sc. is that it has been made social. On the one hand, what a scientific man recog- nizes as a fact of sc. must be smthg open to anybody to observe, provided he fulfill the nee condtns, external and internal. On the oth hand the meth of mod sc. is social in respect to the solidarity of its efiforts. When a prob comes bef the sctfc world, a hundred men immed'ly set all their energies to work upon it. One contributes this, anoth that. Anoth company standing upon the shoulders of the first strike a little higher, until at last the parapet is attained. Still anoth moral factor of the meth of sc, perhaps even more vital than the last, is the self-confidence of it. * * * But mod sc has never faltered in its confidence that it w'd ult'ly find out the truth concerning any ques in which it c'd apply the check of experiment.

Summary of Implications: If there be a sc. of Interptn: (1) It must be a body of princpls, rather than of spe- cific rules ; (2) these princpls must completely cover all the probs. of Interprtn ; (3) they must be so systematized as to be easily comprehended and retained, and conven- iently applied ; (4) there must be some ult. princpl in which they can all be reduced to unity; (5) there must be some charactrstc meth. insuring a high deg-ree of verificatn and control of results once obtained.

II. Subject Matter of Interprtn: In this discussion limited to written instruments.

Features Common to All Written Instruments:

i. All are a mode of communication bet mind and mind. Here note :

1. Communictn consists in the establishment of a commu- nity of ideas and emotions bet. two or more minds : 2. Inter- prtn in an efifort to participate in this community ; 3. A sc. of interprtn simply a master-mode of communictn. It is the sc. of the processes of univ'l communication.

ii. Media of communicatn in case of all written instrumts are thought-symbols which (1) appeal primarily, but not exclusively to the eye ; (2) consist largely, but by no means exclsvly, of written characters ; (3) collectvly they constitute the organized whole known as "written language."

iii. Origin and Characteristics of Thought-Symbols.

1. The thought-symbols employed in written instrumts are as various and as dififrnt as written languages. This true even where two languages employ same "written char- acters ;" 2. They originate in racial needs, and register and reflect national history and racial idiosyncrasy ; 3. They are conventional, but rarely arbitary ; 4. They are plastic in a high degree. Here note that (1) There may be change of form without change of force ; (2) of force without change of form ; (3) of both form and force ; (4) changes are along line of least resistance, and und law of parsimony; 5. Same written characters may be symbols of totally diffrnt ideas and emotions ; 6. Tenacity is anoth characteristic of thought- symbols.

N. B. — This last mentioned characteristic, along with the oth, will come up again for farther consideration.

Lecture II. Nature of Subject Matter Involved.

i. Particular Writing Defined: A writing is the record in thought-symbols of such and such a kind of the mental, moral, and spiritual functionings of a personality, so and so constituted, and so and so circumstanced, in its efforts to produce such and such effects upon other personalities whom it conceives as so and so constituted and so and so circum- stanced.

ii. Def'n Analized. (i) The writing consists of thought- symbols of such and such a kind. It is written in English, Greek, Hebrew, or some other language. This means — 1. That the writing is English in the same sense that its author is English. Each, according to its own kind, is simply a specialized manifestation of those characteristics that differ- entiate the English fr all oth people. 2. It is not an isolated something, but an integral part of English life, and more

partic'ly of English literature. 3. It is this generic char- acter of these thought-symbols that fit them to be a medium of communication among Eng. men. The Eng. language is one manifestation of the actual community of life among the Eng. people. Hence it is a basis of communion among them. 4. But for this reason a bar to communion with others.

(ii) A partic. writing is the record of the functiongs of a given personality: Here note : 1. It is an instantaneous photo- graph of the personality in action ; a specialized expression of the personality. 2. The thought-symbols employed are mere media, instruments thru which the living spirit pro- jects itself upon other spirits ; and even, so far forth, visual- izes itself in action. 3. They are subservient in an amazing degree to the will and needs of the personality using them. 4. The writing is not an isolated something, but an integral part of the life history of its author.

(iii) The personality from whom the writing proceeds is so and so constituted. Here note: 1. He is himself, i. e., dififerent from all others. 2. He is a complex, not a simple something : the product of at least three distinct complexes of influences — (1) Pre-natal; (2) pre-maturity ; (3) Post- maturity. 3. He is not, however, the mere sum of these influences, the mere focus and outlet of these influences. He is possessed of individuality, and is himself a vera causa. 4. He is not an isolated something, but an integral part of his nation and of his community. "A member in particu- lar" of the body politic.

(iv) At the time of writing the author is so and so circum- stanced. Here note: 1. Every one of us is ceaselessly acted upon by, reacting to, and more or less consciously reacting upon our surroundings. 2. These influences act upon us apart from, our consciousness ; and in a measure apart from our option. 3. Our reactions take the form of thought, feeling, words, acts. 4. These reactions are occasioned, and partly determined by the influences that call them forth.

(v) The writing designed to produce such and such spe-

cific effects upon persons whom its author conceives of as so and so constituted and so and so circumstanced. Here note: 1. The specific ends aimed at in the writing will be determined: (1) Partly by its author's own personality and circumstances; (2) partly by his. relatn to those whom he addresses; (3) and partly by his conceptn of their charac- teristics and circumstances. 2. The ends to be effected, together with the writer's conceptn of the char, and circum- stncs of those addressed will determine — (1)) Theme; (2) Literary form; (3) Contents; (4) Structure of wrtg. 3. The writer may have a wrong conceptn eith — (1) of the char., or (2) of the circumstncs of those addressed.

(vi) Recapitulation and Summary: 1. The thought-sym- bols employed in the partic wrtg are not (1) a simple, but a complex something. They are the joint product of the racial genius of the people of which the writer is a member and their past history ; (2) They are not an isolated smthg, but are an integral part of a larger organic whole. — namely, of the written language of the people of which the author is a member.

2. The author of the partic wrtg (1) is not a simple, but a complex smthg. — a joint product of (a) all the past of his people ; (b) of all his own past ; (c) of his Zeitgeist and envi- ronmt — of all these ; (d) as organized and dominated by his own individuality ; (2) He is not an isolated smthg, but is organically connected with his race, his age, his commu- nity, etc.

3. The partic wrtg. (1) is not a simple, but a complex something; the joint product of manifold and subtil influ- ences playing upon its author as he writes, and his own individuality. (2) Is not an isolated smthg. but is organi- cally connected — (a) with its author's zeigeist and envi- ronmt; (b) with the life history of its author; (c) with the previous products of his pen.

N. B. — A point too important to be passed by is that the thought-symbol employed in a given wrtg viewed in their entirety constitute an organic whole.

8

Lecture III. Twofold Problem of Interpreter,

Prelim. Rem: 1. Two famous dicta:

(1) Bengel with his usual sententious wisdom has said: 'Tt is the special office of every interpretation to exhibit adequately the force and significance of the words which the text contains, so as to express everything which the author intended, and to introduce nothing which he did not intend." This is capital. (2) Very valuable is the dictum of Salmon : "The interpreter's function not being to develop some mean- ing which the words might bear to present students, or which the first readers may have seen in them, but simply to ascertain with precision and completeness, the ideas which the writers themselves meant to convey, it may be said with Schleiermacher that in a certain sense, the inter- preter has to educe more than the author introduced. The former has to bring out into clearness much that influenced the latter half unconsciously in his composition, and to give objective statement to much that underlies his definite state- ments. Hence the special need of a scientific Hermeneutic for a book like the Bible, in which there is so much that is implicit." This only needs to be supplemented by the state- ment that the Bible has a Divine Author, as well as human authors. The student is urged to analyze this dictum, pon- der each element of it, and commit the whole to memory.

2. The function of the interpreter is to put those for whom he interprets into communicatn with the author inter- preted. But obviously to do this he must previously have put himself in communicatn with the author. His prob- lem, therefore, is two-fold.

(I) First Phase of Problem: i. Problem Stated: For a person so and so constituted and so and so circumstanced to ascertain with precision and completeness the significance and force of the functionings of another person so and so

constituted and so and so circumstanced who is functioning thru thought-symbols of such and such a kind with a view to producing such and such results upon other persons whom he conceives of as being so and so constituted and so and so circumstanced.

ii. Factors Giving Rise to Problem: (i) The difference bet the thought-symbols thru which the writer under exam- inatn is functioning, and those thru which the interpreter is accustomed to function — c. a., the diffrnc bet Eng. and Greek, or Greek and Heb. Here note: 1. The interpreter deals directly with the thought-symbols. 2. These are only a part of a larger organized whole with which they are organically connected ; and can only be understood as such. 3. Behind this larger body of thought-symbols and find- ing expression thru them are racial points of view, racial habits of thought, racial genius, which in their turn have been partly determined and partly modified by racial his- tory. 4. Behind the selected body of thought-symbols con- stituting the wrtg und exam are the personality and pur- pose of the writer functioning thru them imparting to them a specific quality and character and in some respects, it may be, a new significance and force. 5. Hence the essence of the interpreter's task here is (1) negatively to divest himself of his own racial genius ; (2) to reconstruct the racial genius and history of the people whose thought-symbols have been employed in the wrtg und exam ; (3) to invest himself with that recial genius — in a word, to Hellenize, or Hebraize his mind.

(ii) The differnc bet the personality of the person employing the symbols and that of the interpreter. N. B. — This is a constant factor in all interprtn, even where the interpreter and the person being interpreted use the same thought-symbols. The essence of the task here is for the interpreter: (1) To repress and hold in abeyance his own personality ; (2) to reconstruct the personality of the person l)eing interpreted; (3) to assimilate himself to it.

10

(iii) The differnc bet circumstncs of the person being interpreted and those of the interpreter. N. B. — This again is a more or less constant factor in all interprtn.

The essence of the interpreter's task here is — (1) To exchide fr his mind the influence of his own circumstncs and surroundings ; (2) to reconstruct those of the person being interpreted, and those of his original readers ; (3) to put himself (a) in the place of the person whom he is inter- preting; (b) and then in that of the original readers. Ana- chronism is fatal to all real interpretatn.

(11) Second Phase of Problem, i. Problem Stated: For a

person so and so constituted and so and so circumstanced adecjuately to exhibit the significance and force of the thought-symbols in a given writing to other persons who are so and so constituted and so and so circumstanced.

ii. Factors giving rise to the problem and determining its essence, and the form of its solution, (i) These are the same as those already mentioned in case of interpreter him- self.

N. B. — The difficulties of the problem (I), (i), above are enhanced by the following considerations — 1. The inter- preter must set forth the functionings of the writer whom he is interpreting thru symbols other than those used by the writer; but it is imposs to establish an exact equipollence bet the thought-symbols of two difl:rnt languages. It is easier for the interpreter to Hellenize or Hebraize his mind than it is for him to Hellenize or Hebraize his mother tongue. 2. But such is the closeness of the reltn bet thought and thought-symbols that it is difficlt to change the latter without marring the former.

(ii) Diffrnc bet the personality of the interpreter and that of those for whm he is interprtg. See abv. (I) (ii).

(iii) Diffrnc bet circumstncs of interpreter and those of persons for whm he is interprtg. See abv. (I) (iii).

N. B. — Etymologically "interpreter" means "a go-be- tween." He is a mediator, and must, as we say, "be in touch," both with the writer whm he seeks to interpret, and with those to whm he interprets. Jo. i. 18 is in point here.

11

R>.nder last clause — "He hath exegeted him," interpreted Him.

N. B. — The term "adequately" in the statemt above is a relative term. It may be relative — 1. To the specific pur- pose of the interpreter ; or 2. To the needs and circumstancs of those for whom he interprets.

Section II. Data for a Satisfactory Answer.

Lecture I. Data from Case of Miss Helen Keller.

I. The Case to Be Studied: That of Miss Helen Keller, i. Outline of Miss Keller's history.

Born Tuscumbia, Ala., June 27th, 1880. Deprived of both sight and hearing by congestion of brain and stomach, February, 1882. After illness retained a vague memory of only one word, and that in a distorted form, 'wah-wah' — 'water.' In March, 1887, was placed under the training of Miss Anne Mansfield Sullivan. ^'^

ii. Miss Keller's account of the experience by which she was enabled ultimately to establish satisfactory communi- cation with others.

The morning after my teacher came she led me into her room and gave me a doll. * * * When I had played with it a little while. Miss Sullivan slowly spelled into my hand the word *d-o-l-l.' I was at once interested in this finger play and tried to imitate it. When I finally succeeded in mak- ing the letters correctly I was flushed with childish pleas- ure and pride. Running downstairs to my mother I held up my hand and made the letters for doll. I did not know that I was spelling a word or even that words existed ; I was simply making my fingers go in monkey-like imitation. In the days that followed I learned to spell in this uncom- prehending way a great many words, among them pin, hat, cup and a few verbs like sit, stand and walk. But my teacher

\y"The Story of Mij Life, p. — .||

12

had been with me several weeks before I understood that everything has a name.

One day, while I was playing with my new doll, Miss SulHvan put my big rag doll into my lap also, spelled 'd-o-l-l' and tried to, make me understand that 'd-o-l-l' applied to both. Earlier in the day we had had a tug over the word *m-u-g' and *w-a-t-e-r.' Miss Sullivan had tried to impress it upon me that 'm-u-g' is mug and that 'w-a-t-e-r' is water, but I persisted in confounding the two. In despair she had dropped the subject at the time, only to renew it at the first opportunity. I became impatient at her repeated attempts, and, seizing the new doll, I dashed it upon the floor. I was keenly delighted when I felt the fragments of the broken doll at my feet. Neither sorrow nor regret fol- lowed my passionate outburst. I had not loved the doll. In the still, dark world in which I lived there was no strong sentiment of tenderness. I felt my teacher sweep the frag- ments to one side of the hearth, and I had a sense of satis- faction that the cause of my discomfort was removed. She brought me my hat, and I knew that I was going out into the warm sunshine. This thought, if a worldless sensation may be called a thought, made me hop and skip with pleas- ure.

We walked down the path. to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered Some one was drawing" water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty con- sciousness as of something forgotten — a thrill of returning thought ; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that 'w-a-t-e-r' meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awaked my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free ! There were barriers still, it is true, but bar- riers that could in time be swept away.'"'

||"The Story of My Life, by Hellen Keller, pp. 22-24. ||

13

iii. Analysis of experience. 1. Miss Sullivan's ultimate object was to establish more perfect communication between herself and Miss Keller. Communication of a very imper- fect kind existed from the start. 2. The chosen medium df communictn was certain tactual sensations — namely, those produced by the use of the manual alphabet. 3. The first step was to convey to Miss Keller the significance that — different groups of these impressions bore for Miss Sulli- van— the group for "water," let us say, or for "doll." 4. Miss' Sullivan's method was to place each successive group of tactual sensations in a certain context, or connection, and to assume — (1) an instinctive ability in Miss Keller to per- ceive that her actions, /. r., Miss Sullivan's were teleologi- cal, /. e., characterized by design or purpose ; and (2) that the connectn or context in which she placed any given group of tactual sensations would disclose to Miss Keller the meaning that she (Miss S.) intended it to have. 5. Ulti- mate results fully justified both assumptions. 6. Tempo- rary failure was due to the fact that Miss Keller, instead of noting the context which Miss Sullivan had created for this group or that, persisted in creating for each a context of her own. 7. Repeated failures contributed to final success — (1) by creating in Miss Keller's mind a larger context revealing more distinctly the general purpose, or meaning of Miss Sullivan's activities ; (2) by causing her to observe more closely the particular context created by Miss Sullivan to reveal the purpose or meaning of this or that group of tactual sensations. Illustrated by (a) "mug" and "water" experiments ; (b) success at pump — where the larger context helped to reveal the meaning of tactual symbols for "water" when placed in a specific, and sharply defined particular context.

II. Conclusions suggested by the case of Miss Keller, 1.

All communications between men are mediated by symbols. 2. The kinds of symbols possible to be employed are theo- retically unlimited. 3. The significance of a given symbol is determined by its context, and changes with its context. 4. The possible contexts of any symbol are theoretically

14

unlimited, and hence the possible significances of any given symbol are also theoretically unlimited. 5. Contexts are (1) objective — /. c, existent in the external world; (2) sub- jective— /. c, created by the mind and existent only in the mind ; (3) and mixed — /. e., some elements exist only in the external world and some only in the mind. 6. The signifi- cance attached by any one to a symbol will be determined by the context in which he places it. 7. Its intended sig- nificance can only be reached when a symbol is placed in its intended context, /. e., when it is placed in the context created for it by the person using it. 8. The intended and the actual significance of a symbol do not always coincide — because the context actually created for a given symbol may not coincide with the context that the person using it intended to create for it. 9. To ascertain with precision and completeness the significance and force of any symbol or collection of symbols all that is necessary is to get before one with precision and completeness its context — actual and intended.

III. Central and regulative principle. From the forego- ing it is evident that which guarantees the possibility of a science of interpretation is the fixed and self-revealing rela- tion that exists between the intended meaning of a symbol and its intended context. Given the intended context, the intended meaning is self-evident and guaranteed.

Lecture II. Data from Hist, of Decipherment of Persepolis Inscriptions : First Steps in Decipherment.

Literature: RFIBA,^- pp. 1-27; see, also, HBD, iii, art. Per- sepolis, NS-H,^'^ art. Medo^Persia, vSec. Ill, IV, V; art. Assyria, Sec. Ill, V, VI.

i. Prelim. Rem. 1. Discussion based upon account in RHBA. 2. The Persepolis Inscriptions. 3. Problem of

ly^History of Babylonia and Assyria, by R. W. Rogers. || ll'-'iVew Schnff-Herzog Encyclopae(Jia.\\

15

Decipherers : To put themselves into communication with author of inscription thru the symbols graven on the rocks. 3. Contrasted w^ith case of one who finds himself in a foreign land. 4. Contrasted with problem solved by Miss Sullivan. 5. The postulates upon which the work of decipherment unconsciously proceeded — (1) All rational action is pur- posive and significant ; (2) The specific significance of every action is determined by its context ; (3) When considered in the light of its whole context — general and special — the sig- nificance and purpose of every action become self-revealing : or more concretely— (1) As is its context so is the meaning of every written symbol or groups of symbols ; (2) Restore with completeness and precision the general and special original context of any given written symbol or group of symbols and you will have ascertained with completeness and precision the significance and force of said symbol or group of symbols.

ii. Initial stage of deciphment. 1. Visits of Odoric (1320), and Barbaro (1472) barren of results. Why? Note com- ments of Dr. R. in each case. (4d, 5a ; 7b.) 2. Discovery of de Gouvea. Note unconscious postulates upon which his mind acted, (lla-b.) 3. Second step in deciphermt : Figueroa's discovery. Contrast with Hyde's conclusions. Note what explains difiference bet two cases. (On Hyde's see RHBA, pp. 77-8.) Note implications of language used by Figueroa (14a-b). 4. Third step: discovery made by della Valle (1614-1626). Note language of della Valle. and also of Herbert (1627-8: see p. 16c-17b, 21d-22a, 23b). Dr. R.'s comment upon work of H., and upon Chardin's con- tribution to "unraveling the secrets of Persep" (24a-d).

Lecture III. Farther Steps in Decipherment.

Literature: RHBA. pp. 28-47; see.alsoJSBE.,'* art. Baby- lonia No. 8 (Language), No. 9 (Script) ; NS-H art. Baby- lonia, sec. V. 1-7; art. Inscriptions, sec. I, II; art. Zoroaster, sec. Ill, IV.

\Y* International Standard Bible Ency.\\

16

Progress of Decipherment: 1. Fourth step: discovery of Kaempfer ; comments of Dr. R. and their significnc (p. 30). 2. Fifth step : discovery of Niebuhr. Dr. R's comment of N's quahfications. N. not satisfied with merely studying works of della Valle and others — why? Comment of N's son; Comment of Dr. R. (p. 36f) ; Farther comment of Dr. R. (37). 3. Sixth step: Tychsen's discovery. Dr. R's com- ment on cjuaHficatns of Tychsen and Munter (p. 39) ; Dr. R's account of T's discovery (p. 38) ; T's attempt at trans- lation, its failure; Explanatn of failure (p. 39). 4. Seventh step : Hunter's discovery. 5. Contribution of Duperron to deciphmt (pp. 41-2) ; 6. Contrbtn of de Sacy (p. 43) ; Dr. R's comments (p. 44b-c).

Lecture IV. Final Steps in Decipherment.

Literature: RHBA., pp. 47-75, 95-98; see, also, NS-H., art. Persian Missions, sec. 1 ; ISBE., arts. Persia and Persian Language and Literature; Memoir of Sir H. C. Rawlinson, p. 157 and ch. xx.

Final steps. 1. Work of Grotefend ; Dr. R's introd'y remark (p. 46) ; Dr. R's comment on G's method (p. 47b) ; Trace successive steps in work of G (eighteen, not including one air mentnd — pp. 47-54) ; 2. Work of Rusk (p. 58) ; 3. Work of Burnouf (p. 59) ; 4. (3f Lassen (p. 60) ; 5. Of Rich (p. 61) ; 6. Of Westergaard (pp. 61-2) ; 7. Of Rawlin- son. Note Dr. R's comment on limitatns of Grotefend (p. 57) ; on R. (pp. 62, 63, 64). Note, also, statement in Memoir (p. 157, and Ch. xx).

Lecture V. Resume of History of Decipherment.

I. Genl. Statemt. of Case Presented by Inscriptions:

i. Purpose of monuments and their inscriptions. — Monu- ments, a method of sign-aling to all passers by, and inviting them to enter into communication with those erecting them.

ii. Media of communication — ^^the characters of which the inscriptions consisted. Thru these characters those erect- ing the monuments sign-ified the thoughts and feelings which they desired posterity to share with them.

17

iii. Assumptions: Those erecting monuments assumed —

I. That the monuments themselves would disclose, and the passer-by would recognize the purpose for which they were < erected ; 2. That the characters employed in the inscriptions would disclose, and the passer-by would appre- hend their sign-ification ; 3. That no lapse of time would modify the sign-ification of the characters employed in the inscriptions ; that this sign-ification would remain fixed and unalterable from generation to generation. '

II. Problems Presented by Inscriptions:

(I) Ult. Prob. : To get into communication with authors of inscriptions.

(II) Prelim. Problems: i. Decipherment of Inscriptions. Decipherment defined and distinguished from translation. (See lexicon on both words.) N. B. — Decipherment involved the following problems and groups of problems :

(i) First prob. AVere the signs used in inscriptions addressed prim'ly to our aesthetic sense, or to our "sense of record?" Note that as late as 1700 Prof. Thos. Hyde main- tained former view.

(ii) Did all the signs used in inscriptions belong to one and same system of thought-symbols ? /. e., were all inscrip- tions in one and the same language?

(iii) What were the signs? This involved —

1. A Determination of sequence of signs.

2. Dift'erentiation of prim, groups (/. c, groups constitut- ing "words") one from anoth.

3. Analysis of these prim, groups into elementary signs (f. c, "letters," or "syllables").

4. Determination whether these elementary signs had a uniform sign-ificance.

5. Determining sign-ificance (/. c, the actual phonetic value) of each several elem. sign.

6. Ascertaining whether the prim, groups (/. e., "words") were subject to modification of form ; to what modifications each was subject ; and what in each case was the sign-ifi- cance of the modification.

18

7. Determining' the sign-ificance of each prim, group (/. e., of each "word").

ii. Translation: Here important to note that "transla- tion" is an elastic term. Includes everything from rather free paraphrase to severely literal rendering. It aims to reproduce the prima facie sign-ificance of the signs employed by the author, so far as this can be done by the thought- symbols familiar to the translator and his readers.

iii. Solution of Problems :

i. Methods Employed: 1. Inspection — a given context was examined with more or less care with a view to observ- ing, and, as far as possible, classifying the phenomena pre- sented.

2. Comparison — The phenomena presented by one context were compared with those presented by another. The aid of the larger context — linguistic, literary, or hist'l as the case called for — was constantly invoked.

3. Scientific Experiment: (1) Testing results reached in connection with one context by "trying them out" in another ; (2) Formulating theories, and testing their valid- ity and sufficiency; (3) Employing data determined in one context to throw light upon those of a different context.

ii. Conditions Determining Advance Towards Final Solu- tion:

1. Enlarging and perfecting the context — linguistic, liter- ary, or historical.

2. Increasing" care in inspection, comparison, and testing.

19

INTERPRETATION.

PART I. SECTION III.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO FORMULATION OF A SCIENCE OF INTERPRETATION FUL- FILLED.

Lecture I. Architectonic Principle of Science. Lecture II. Characteristic Method of Science.

1. Architectonic Principle Stated: The context — that is to say. the original context, and the entire context — deter- mined and will disclose the significance and force of the symbols which together constitute a given writing.

Here note —

i. The distinction bet. the original and the actual context. 1. The original context, is the context of the writing as it came from the hand of its atithor. It is as ilnchangeable as the past. 2. The actual context is the context in which the writing presents itself to this or that interpreter. Accordingly the actual context varies more or less with every interpreter. Again, the actual context tends not to disclose, but, so far, to obscure, and even to change the significance and force of the symbols which together con- stitute the writing.

ii. The distinction bet. the visible and the invisible con- text. 1. The visible context consists of the writing and its setting, so far as the latter comes under the eye of sense. Its composition varies. In case of the original context, it includes — (1) Body of symbols constituting the writing. This, of course, the central part. (2) Objects evidently designed by author to be associated with his text. (3) All the manifold objects locally and temporarily associated with composition of the writing so far as discernible by eye of sense, even tho not consciously or designedly associated with text by its author. In case of the actual context, the two latter elements in visible context vary according to the temporal and local situation of the investigator.

20

2. The invisible context consists of linguistic, literary, historical, logical, and psychological elements. Of these — (1) some associate themselves intimately with the symbols constituting the writing; (2) others are associated with these symbols as back-ground and setting.

N. B. — This invisible context is not less real than is the visible; nor is it less really a part of the entire context ; nor is it less important for the significance and force of the sym- bols. N. B. — It is undetachable from the body of symbols; and its constituent elements are unalterable.

iii. It will be convenient, farther, to distinguish bet. the Immediate, Remote and Larger Contexts. 1. The Immedi- ate Context will designate the wrtg. und. exam., and most frequently that part of it dir'ly und. inspection. 2. The Remote Context will designate other writings intimately associated with the one und. exam. 3. The Larger Context divides itself into^(l) the Linguistic; (2) Literary; (3) Historical; (4) Logical, and (5) Psychological Context.

N. B. — The author of a writing is the nexus bet. the visible and the invisible contexts.

N. B. — It is the function of Introduction — General and Special — to bridge the gulf bet. the original and the actual contexts ; bet. the visible and the invisible contexts.

II. Architectonic Character of Principle Stated Estab- lished,

i. It determines the constituent elements of the Sc. of Interpretation and their relation one to the other.

(i) Constituent Elements: 1. Gram'l Interprtn. 2. Lit. Interpretn. 3. Hist'l Interpretn. 4. Log'l Interprtn. 5. Psycholog'l Interpretn.

(ii) Mutual Relations of Several Branches of Interpreta- tion:

1. Gram'l Int. has dir'ly to do with the symbols of which a writing is composed. These are the media of communi- cation bet. author and interpreter. All oth. branches of Interpretation have to do with ascertaining in what respects and how far the usual significance and force of these sym-

21

bols have been modified by one or another extraneous influ- ence. 2. Psycholog'l Interpretation has to do with the influence exerted by the personality of the author (and those for whom he wrote) upon the signifcnc and force of the symbols employed. Hence it becomes a ques how far his personality has been affected by hist'l conditions (including- in these the personalities of those for whom he writes) ; and how far it. /. c, the writer's personality, has affected the thought movemt (Log'l Interpretation) of the wrtg, the literary form used, and the use made of the literary form.

ii. It Insures the Unity of the So. This is sufficiently obvious from what has air. been said.

iii. It Provides a Characteristic Method, Yielding Results Capable of a High Degree of Verification and Con- trol.

(i) Method:

1. Reconstruction of the original context with complete- ness and precision.

Here note — (1) "Completeness and precision" are neces- sarily relative terms; (2) What are known as "material difficulties" may sometimes hinder, sometimes absolutely prevent reconstruction of original context. This does not invalidate claim of Interpretation to be a sc. 2. Inspection of the reconstructed context ; 3. Comparison of one part of the context with another ; and of one element of the context with another ; 4. Scientific experiment, testing conclu- sions reached in connection with one part or element of the context by those demanded by other parts or elements.

(ii) Verification and Control of Results. This insured 1. By the objective character of the Immediate Context, and of many features of the Remote and the Larger Con- texts. 2. By the indefeasible sovereignty of the Immediate Context — where it is unambiguous. 3. By the fact that valid results must satisfy the reasonable demands of all parts and elements of the context.

N. B. — That which threatens verification and control of results is — (1) The essential plasticity of all symbols mak-

22

ing it possible to fit them into a subjective context totally different from the original context ; (2) And the fact that this subjective context immediately imparts to them a sig- nificance and force totally different from that impressed upon them by the original context. (3) By the relation that the subjective context sustains to the interpreter's whole scheme of life. (4) The fact that all community of idea and emotion is essentially subjective.

N. B. — The safeguard against this peril lies in the essen- tially objective character of the original context. Sooner or later the objective context will dominate the subjective and force the interpreter, as we say, to change his mind.

INTERPRETATION.

PART II. CONSTITUENT PARTS OF SCIENCE OF INTERPRETATION.

LECTURE I. GENERAL GRAMMATICAL INTER- PRETATION.

Prelim. Rem. It is of the first importance for student to liave clearly bef. him connotation of the term "grammatical" as here tised. For this see printed paper — "Grammatical Interprtn."

I. Gen'l Gram'l Interpretation, i. Subject-Matter. All

systems of symbolization employing gram'l symbols, or any particular srch system, ii. Function. To ascertain and adequately to exhibit the signifcnc and force of the indi- vid'l features of such system of symbolztn beginning with the simplest and most elementary, and including ev. feature of the system.

iii. Postulates, (i) Fundamental Postulate: The context (/. e., the original and entire context) determined the signifi- cance and force of each symbol, and the context will disclose the same, (ii) Subsidiary Postulates: 1. Ev. feature of the context is significant ; what its actual significance is, the context itself must declare. 2. Any and ev. change in any feature of the context is significant ; what its actual signif.

23

is the contxt itself must disclose. 3. Symbols are hist'l phena.. and as such (1) in their origin, both as to form and signifcnc, are genetically related to a given hist'l situation ; and (2) all their subsequent modifications, whether of form or of significance, are genetically related to varying hist'l situations. 4. Modifications in the form and significance of symbols originate und the operation of the Law of Parci- mony, and are also restricted by the Law of Parcimony. This law forbids the multiplication of separate symbols, and so demands that new needs be met, as far as poss., by modi- fying the form or the significance of symbols air. in use. It forbids, however, the "overworking" of a symbol. (N. B. — Many modifications of form occur und. the specific phase of the Law of Parcimony known as the Law of Anal- ogy)- 5. Modifications in the significance of symbols originate in the plasticity of the idea signified by a symbol, and are restricted by the extent of this plasticity. (N. B. — All ideas not equally plastic, that is to say, certain ideas fr their very nature have a wider range of adaption and modificatn than have others.) 6. The significance orig'ly given to a symbol and the modifications of this significance occur und the operatn of the Law of Association of Ideas. /./There may be modification of significance without modi- fication of form ; and modificatn of form without modificatn of significance. (N. B. — This does not mean that there can be modification of form without such modification being significant ; but that such modification does not necessarily signify a modification in the significance of the symbol.) 8. No two symbols have identically the same significance. (N. B. — This postulat-e the basis of a sound doctrine of syn- onyms.) This true in case of symbols one of which starting with a lower connotation gradually takes on a higher, while another starting with a higher connotation takes on a lower. — e. g., maker becoming Maker, and Creator becoming crea- tor. The fact that either term may be applied indififer- ently to the same person — God, let us say, — does not mean that the person so applying them does not distinguish bet the significance of the two terms nor does it mean that he is fndififerent to the distinction in signifinc.

24

iv. Method of Gen'l Gram'l Int. See Pt. I, Sec. Ill, Lect. II.

V. Products of Gen'l Gram'l Int. 1. Primary Products:

(1) Alphabet (or syllabary) ; (2) Word list (or list of ideo- grams) ; (3) Elementary grammar. 2. More Developed Products: (1) Lexicon; (2) Fully elaborated grammar; (3) Rhetoric ; (4) Treatises on the genius and characteristics of partic. system of symbols, etc. 3. Ultimate Products: (1) Paleography; (2) Linguistics ("The sc. of languages, or of the origin, hist., application, and signifnc of words ; the com- parative study of the laws and properties of languages ; comparative philology" * * * "Philology concerns itself chiefly with that which is peculiar to a given speech and its literature, linguistics with those laws and properties which are common to all lang's ; Philol. is conversant with distinc- tions, linguistics with analogies." Stand. Diet, and G. P. Marsh. Led. on Eng. Lang., p. 44 s. 1885. cited in Stand. Diet.) (3) Philology (or Literary Philol.) ("Philol. the scientific investigation of the laws and principles that obtain in a lang. or group of lang's." Stand. Diet.)

N. B. — The nature of the products of Gen'l Gram'l Int. should determine their use. They are not merely aids to interpretation ; they are themselves one and all, in every instance interpretations. (See printed article, Gram'l Int.: Its Primary Problems and Products.)

LECTURE 11. SPECIAL GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION.

I. Subject-Matter. The symbols which in their entirety constitute a given writing, and these viewed as a part of a particular system of gram'l symbolization, at a partic. stage of its development. N. B. — Thus Spec'l Gram'l Interpreta- tion assumes the results of Gen'l Gram'l Interpretation as its starting point.

II. Function: (I) First Function. To ascertain with precision and completeness in what respects, if any, and to what extent the symbols constituting the writing have been modified in their signi-icance or force, so far as such modifi-

25

cation may be reflected in, or determinable from the gram'l phena. presented by the symbols themselves. Here note —

(1) That Spec'l Gram'l Interpretation presupposes a knowl- edge of the principles and the results of Gen'l Gram'l Inter- pretation as related to the system of symbols employed in the writing und. exam.; (2) It confines itself rigidly to dealings with such modifications of signifnc. or force as are reflected in and determinable fr. gram'l phena.; (3) The terms "significance" and "force" have to do respectively with the intellectual and the emotional content of a symbol. All symbols are mere containers.

Postulates: 1. See postulates given und Gen'l Gram'l Interpretation. Nos. 1 and 2, 7 and 8. N. B.— The term "context" is intended to cover the whole machinery of sym- bolization — including not merely what we call the "words" themselves, but their orthoepy, etymol, phonology, prosody, and the like; and also their various relations, syntactical, rhetorical, and even spacial and numerical and the like. Farther, as here used, the term applies prim'ly to the writ- ing und exam, and more particularly to that portion of it lying bef the eye at any given time. 2. As bet several pos- sible significances the preponderance of probability as to the actual significance Is — in a rising scale from least to most prob. — is as fol's : (1) that the symbol has its prim, signif. ;

(2) signif. most common at time of writing; (3) most com. in writings of author; (4) best suited to purpose and thought-movement of writing und. exam ; (5) best suited to immed. context.

(II) Second function: Adequately to exhibit the signifnc and force of the gram'l symbols constituting a given writ- ing, so far as this can be done in the use of gram'l symbols other than and usually also of a species different from those employed in the writing being interpreted. Here note — (1) The term "adequately," as here used, is nec'ly relative; and in partic. it is rel. to the specific purpose of the interpre- ter, which varies with circumstances ; (2) To borrow a fig. from music, difference in "timbre," "range," and "quality" are consistent with adequacy (fidelity to the original).

26

Timbre, range, and quality are inherent in and inseparable fr. individuality. Modifications of signifnc and force due to these qualities in the interpreter do no "violence" to the "original." They import nothing into the original, but simply bring to more perfect expression than the author himself has done, or, it may be, could do, what the author himself put there.

Postulates: 1. As far as is consistent with the genius of the system of sympolization employed by the interpreter, the char'c features of the system of symbolization employed in the writing being interpreted must be preserved and repro- duced.

N. B. — This applies to vocables, gram'l construction, rhetorical char'cs, structural char'cs and the like.

2. The necessity and the advantage of any modification of the symbolization of the original must both alike be jus- tified.

N. B. — The considerations that justify modification are such as these: (1) The modification is implicit in the origi- nal, and failed to be made explicit simply bee. of the unde- veloped state of the machinery of symbolization — e. g., arrangement of matter so as to bring out logical divisions, or structural peculiarities ; use of inverted commas for quotations ; and even the relegation of matter to footnotes or appendices. In all these cases no violence is done to what may be called the genius of the system of symboliza- tion. The absence of such features of symbolization are due solely to the undeveloped state of the art of book-mak- ing. Such modifications justify themselves (1) bee. they simply make explicit what is air. implicit in the writing itself ; and (2) bee. they greatly facilitate insight into the signif. and force of the writing, and also its use for practical purpose. (3) In case of a conflict bet. the genius of the sys- tem of symbolization found in the writing and that used by the interpreter, the latter must prevail.

III. Conditions sine qua non to success: 1. Competent mastery of the system of symbolization used in the writing being interpreted ; 2. Competent mastery of the system of

27

symbolization employed by interpreter ; 3. Ceaseless vig^i- lance against the obscuring and perverting influence of the subjective context. 4. The interpreter must be en rapport with the genius of the system of symbolization employed in the writing, with the author employing it, and with those for whom he seeks to interpret. To the Jew he must become a Jew ; and to the Greek, a Greek. No amount of mere information will be enough.

IV. Limitations of Gram'l Interpretation. These are very real and need constantly to be borne in mind. They arise from such facts as the foll'g, viz. : 1. Gram'l phena. are sometimes obscure. Anomalies and irregularities occur in most writings. 2. Gram'l phena. are freq'ly ambiguous. 3. Gram'l phena. themselves frequently originate fr hist'l.. lit., log'l, or psychol. causes. In such cases these phena must wait on one or anoth of these branches of Interpreta- tion for their explanation. 4. Besides the gram'l phena. which present themslvs to the eye, and inseparably asso- ciated with them, tho invisible, are hist'l, lit, log'l and psychol phena., upon which the full signif. and force of the symbols depend. With these Gram'l Interpretn is incom- petent to deal. 5. Lack of equipollence — (1) Bet. interpre- ter and race whose system of symbolization is found in writ- ing; (2) Bet interpreter and author; (3) Bet one system of symbolztn and anoth.

Lecture III. Spec'l Gram'l : Its Products.

I. Primary Product. The Gram'l Commentary. N. B. — Tho the gram'l comm. is in fact the first product of Spec'l Gram'l Int., it is not the product us'lly first presented to the public in completed form. Here let us note : i. The nat. of the gram'l comm.

1. It is in reality a conspectus and criticism of the litera- ture of interpretation as that bears upon the writing und exam. (N. B. — It is such, "more or less," as we say.)

2. It is a reasoned justification by its author of the conclu- sions reached by him as to the significance and force of the gram'l phena presented by the writing ; setting forth and

28

otherwise revealing the principles that have guided him, and the methods that he has employed, thus enabling the reader to judge for himself of the validity of those prin- ciples.

ii. Legitimate use of gram'l comm. 1. It is not a "pony" — a thought-saving device (or supposed to be) ; 2. It is not an "authority" — a means of escaping at one and the same time labor and responsibility. 3. It is — (1) a labor economizing device ; (2) a means of awakening and directing the thought of the interpreter ; (3) an argument by counsel addressed to the interpreter as judge. N. B. — In order to a safe use of a comm., it is of great importance to know what is us'ly called the "personal equation" of its author. This I prefer to call the "subjective context."

II. Ultimate Product: A Translation. N. B. — This is an elastic term. It includes everything from what is called a "literal translation" to a free paraphrase. Here it is used in neither of these senses, but in its more usual and familiar sense.

N. B. — Translation and a translation are related as process and product. Anybody can make a translation for us, but no one can translate foi^ us.

i. Problem of Translator: From the symbols of the lang. into which the translation is being made to select such as are best suited, everything considered, as far as possible, adequately to exhibit the signif. and force of those used in the original.

Here note — (1) The implication of — (a) "everything considered;" (b) "as far as possible."

2. The machinery of symbolization is not limited to words, but includes "all those contrivances" by which thought and emotion may be represented to the eye, whether directly or indirectly, — e. g., typographical arrangement ; interpretative headings, and terms accompanying, but dis- tinguished fr the text proper, etc. (See Moulton's Mod. Reader's Bible.)

3. Matters important to be considered by the translator are: (1) The demands of Lit. Form — (a) of the L. F.

29

used in original ; (b) of L. F. used by translator ; (2) Demands of idiom of lang. into which the translation is being made; (3) The. relation bet. the symbol employed in the original, and its signif. and force. Form may determine signif. and force.

ii. Nat. of a translation: 1. It is concerned prim'ly, if not exclusively with the symbols as symbols. It may be said to be an effort at re-symbolization. Large areas of the original context — visible and invisible — do not come within its pur- view. 2. It is an interpretation — or rather so far forth an interpretation. Sometimes and for some purposes it may be the only interpretation necessary. More frequently it is only the starting point and basis for the most important part of the work of the interpreter.

N. B. — The correctness and worth of a translation as an interpretation can be determined only by an appeal to the original, and in the light of an adequate knowledge of the original.

N. B. — It is a matter of history that mistakes in transla- tion have had grave and far-reaching consequences.

N. B. — On the importance of correct translation see Saulez's The Romance of the Heb. Lang., 38c, 46ac. And on the importance of verifying a translation by comparison with the original, see Ibid., 39c. See, also. Prophets and The Promise, 150ab-ac; 237a-d, and passim.

iii. Elements of an ideal translation: 1. Driver's state- ment— "An ideal translation of the Bible should possess, I suppose, four leading characteristics : it should be idiomatic, dignified, accurate, clear." 2. Prof. J. H. Gardiner, Some of the terms employed by Prof. G. to give expression to his sense of the unsurpassed excellence of what is known as the Authorized Version — its "unequalled vitality and freshness of expression" (283ca) ; "it clothes its own language with the rich connotation of the original and with the less defin- able, but no less potent expressive power of sound" (283d) ; "it is a work of extraordinary vigor, beauty, and individu- ality of character" (295b) ; "the richness of the music and the expressive beat of the rhythm stand out pre-eminent,"

30

.... its power to express strong and earnest feeling through the pure sound of the style ; through its rhythm and the harmony and mingling of its tones its language gives expression to those deeper and diffused moods which for lack of more exact expression we call stirrings of the soul" (302c-d) ; "it took over from the Heb. a certain swiftness and momentum also ; and at the same time through the dominance of the singing qualities which I have air. referred to in the chap, on the poetry of the Bible, it had a richness and coloring which have perh. never been surpassed, and which sufifuse its words with deep reverence and earnest- ness" (308b-c) ; etc., etc. On the importance of felecity of phrasing, see Ibid.

iv. Conditions of Successful Translation: Gardiner's The Bible As Bug. Lit. (from which foregoing excerpts have been made) 296bb ; 318b-320a ; 323d-324d ; 331bc-d; 337a-b ; 338cd ; 355d-356a ; 356dd-357d ; 360d-362b ; 362c-363d ; 392b- 393a.

Lecture IV. Historical Interpretation.

I. Subject-Matter : The symbols constituting a given writing viewed as liable to be affected in their form, signifi- cance and force by the general and special hist'l context of which they together with the author employing them form a part.

II. Function: 1. To ascertain with precision and com- pleteness in what respects, if any, and to what extent the form, significance and force of the symbols have been affected by the hist'l context — gen'l and spec'l ; 2. Ade- quately to exhibit the same ; 3. To test the validity of all proposed interpretations by their consonance or lack of con- sonance with the demands of the hist'l context — gen'l and spec'l.

III. Postulates: 1. Every writer is an integral part of the life of his race, his age, his vicinage, and of the several social groups into which he is born or introduced. As such he

31

shares their intellectual, moral, and social life, reacting ceaselessly to the ceaseless movements of the same.

2. Every writing represents the reactings of its author to certain features — gen'l or spec'l — of the national and com- munity life of which his life is a part, and can only be fully understood when viewed in its relations to the same.

3. Every writing is addressed primarily, tho rarely exclu- sively, to the author's contemporaries, and presumably is adapted to their understandings, and related to their circum- stances and needs.

IV. Conditions precedent to Hist'l Interpretation:

i. Determination of facts regarding the Origin of writing und. exam, (i) Facts as to its Temp'l and Local Origin —

?'. e., its date and place of composition. N. B. — These must be fixed in order to the next step, which is the determina- tion of the —

Facts as to the World-view, Zeitgeist, and Environment

amid which and under the influence of which the writing originated. N. B. — By the world-view is meant the way in which the contemporaries of the author construed to their understanding the universe as a whole, and human hist, in gen'l, and their own hist, as a part of this larger whole ; by Zeitgeist is meant the predominant interests and prevailing view points — intellectual, ethical, social, political, etc., — of the author's contemporaries ; by environment is meant spe- cific features of the situation — foreign and domestic, politi- cal, religious, or social — that obtained at the time and place where the writing was composed.

(ii) Facts as to its Personal Origin: /. e., the facts as to its author — his antecedents ; social, political, and religious afifiliations ; official status ; sources of information in regard to matters treated in writing ; his personal attitude towards the prevalent world-view, Zeitgeist, and environment ; his mental, moral and spiritual characteristics ; etc., etc.

(iii) Facts as to its Occasional Origin — /. r., as to the course of events leading up to and issuing in composition of writing.

32

N. B. — The question of Origin in all its aspects is a purely and exclusively an hist'l ques. Hence it belongs to the domain of Hist'l Criticism. The ques. with which Hist'l Interpretation has to do is — not, What are the facts as to the Origin of this writing? but, What is the significance of the facts as to the Origin of this writing — as determined by Hist'l Criticism — for its interpretation? What light do the facts as to Origin throw upon the form, significance, and force of the symbols constituting the writing?

N. B. — A correct conception of "History" is of funda- mental importance for valid results in Hist'l Criticism, and ultimately in Hist'l Interpretation, which assumes the results of Hist'l Criticism. The following is in the main a satisfactory brief definition of history :

"History, in the correct use of the word, means the prose narrative of past events, as probably true as the fallibility of human testimony will allow" (Bncy. Brit., 9th ed.. vol. xii, art. History, by J. Cotter Morrison).

ii. Reorganization of the hist'l context with a view to exhibiting the genetic influence exerted by this or that fea- ture of it upon the form, significance or force of the symbols constituting the writing. N. B. — To do this is the proper function of Special Introduction. This discipline, together with Hist'l Criticism, lays the foundation not only for Hist'l Interpretation, but also for Logical and for Psychological Interpretation as well.

iii. Use of the "hist'l imagination" to realize — i. e., to make real to one's self the action and interaction of the vari- ous factors in the hist'l context. N. B. — There is a vast difference between using the imagination upon hist'l mate- rial, and using it as a source for hist'l material. Of course, the imagination cannot supply us with information con- cerning the past.

V. Pseudo-Hist'l Interpretation: Much that calls itself "Hist'l Interpretation" is vitiated and its results are dis- credited by one or another or all of the following faults :

1. It is dominated by the theory of evolution.

2. By a naturalistic conception of hist. (See illustration in Princeton Thcol. Rev., Oct., 1913. 695d.)

33

3. By assumption that "the Bible is like other books," i. e., is in all respects like oth. bks.

4. By failure to allow for the power and play of person- ality.

5. By using the imagination as a source for hist'l data.

6. By refusing to permit the writer to speak for himself, forcing what he says into agreement with some procrustean theory. (Disallowing the sovereignty of the immediate context.)

Lecture V. Logical Interpretation.

I. Subject-Matter : The symbols that constitute a given writing viewed as liable to be affected in their form, signifi- cance, or force by the specific purpose for which they are therein employed, and also by the manner in which the author employs them for effecting this purpose — i. e., viewed as liable to be affected by the Thought-goal and the Thought-movement of the writing, or its purpose and struc- ture.

N. B. — "Structure" as here used is not to be confounded with Lit. Form. Certain Lit. Forms — e. g., the sonnet — have fixed structural characteristics ; but usually Lit. Forms permit of a wide range of structural variation.

N. B. — All writings that are properly included und one and the same Lit. Form have, of course, so far a common purpose ; but in addition to this each such composition has its own specific purpose. Log'l Interpretation, while not indifferent to the former, — /. e., the common purpose, is directly concerned only with the specific purpose.

N. B. — All interpretational processes, whether directly concerned with gram'l, hist'l. literary, or psychological phe- nomena, to be valid must themselves be logical in the sense of conforming to the fundamental laws of thought. But this fact does not transform other distinct branches of Inter- pretation into Log'l Interpretation ; nor does it do away with the necessity for the latter.

34

II. Function of Log'l Interpretation:

i. To ascertain and exhibit the purpose and structure of the writing tmd exam, viewed as a whole.

N. B. — The purpose of an ancient writing is sometimes stated by its author — e. g., Jo. 20:31 ; Luke 1 :l-4: more fre- quently it has to be ascertained — 1. Fr. a careful, detailed study of the salient features of the hist'l situation that at the time of writing confronted the writer, including par- ticularly the circumstances and characteristics of those whom he addresses, and the relations bet himself and them. 2. Fr. a careful study of the contents of the writing in the light of the foregoing.

Postulates: 1. Every book is written to meet some need.

2. The need to be met in the case of any given book is to be sought for in the antecedents, present circumstances or prospective experience of those to whom it is prim'ly addressed.

3. The need to meet which the book is written will usually largely determine the specific purpose of the book.

4. The purpose for which a book is written together with the circumstances of those to whom it is addressed will largely determine its contents, literary form, structure.

N. B. — The foregoing remarks apply to writings that are what are called "literary units" — /. e., is single organized wholes. It sometimes happens that a composition con- sists of a number of such "literary units" in mere external juxta-position one with another — e. g., Paul's First Epistle to the Cor.

N. B. — Even a writing that is a genuine lit. unit may fall into a number of divisions, each of which will have its OAvn specific purpose, subordinate and germane to the purpose of the writing as a whole. These major divisions will them- selves fall into subdivisions, related one to another, to the divisions of which they are parts and to the writing as a whole — though their relation to the latter may be more or less indirect and remote. In other words, a writing may be a complicated mechanism, each part of which will consti- tute a study in itself as well as in its relations to the writ- ing as a whole.

35

N. B. — In addition to its main purpose, a writing may be intended to effect other subsidiary minor purposes. Where such is the case Logical Interpretation must take account of these.

ii. A second function of Log'l Interpretation is to ascer- tain and exhibit the significance of the purpose and struc- ture of a writing for the form, significance, or force of each of the several parts, sections, paragraphs, sentences — of the writing, and of the symbols of which each is composed.

Postulates :

1. Prior to positive evidence to the contrary the state- ments of a writer are to be presumed to be :

(1) Self-consistent; (2) Coherent and consequent.

2. The meaning of every part, down to the smallest will be best understood and can only be fully understood in the light of its relation to the particular whole of which it is a part.

iii. Third function — to test the validity of proposed inter- pretations— gram'l, hist'l, etc., — by their accord or their lack of accord with the purpose and structure of the book as a whole, or of this or that major or minor section of the book.

iv. Abuses of Log'l Interpretation.

1. To assume that a given writing is a literary unit.

2. To ignore the demands of literary form.

3. To ignore the influence of individual idiosyncracy — the dift'erence, let us say, bet. Paul and John.

4. To ignore the influence of modes of reasoning and of composition current when writing was produced.

5. To fly in the face of the "immediate context."

1 J

PAWPHIET BINDER

H^Z Syracuse, N. Y.

■^^^^^ Slockton, Calif.

DATE DUE
	^i^lr*
.'■"»<i»«*jf»
j GAYLORD		PRINTED IN U.S.A.

BS476.M17 Interpretation.

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

,^->

^Ss^-^s^

•*%'