Aims of Interpretation

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. Hirsch opens his book "Aims of Interpretation" with the observation that there is a post-modernist view of "semantic authority," which states that the literature should be separated "...from the subjective realm of the author's personal thoughts and feelings." In addition, Hirsch notes that the phrase "a critics reading" came into vogue in scholarly works soon after W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley wrote an article titled The Intentional Fallacy, which was essentially a "shot across the bow" of the neo-Romantic artworld's belief that an artwork reflects what the artist means or intends it to mean. "The word [reading] seemed to imply that if the author had been banished, the critic still remained, and his new, original, urbane, ingenious, or relevant `reading' carried its own interest." Thus, Hirsch's well-aimed opening attack on the intentional fallacy theory is that this semantic autonomy can lead to an "exaggerated" interpretation in literary criticism, which leads to a weakened objective validity. Hirsch notes that after several decades, the intentional fallacy theory, which argues for authorial banishment, has met with skepticism since the only entity left for determining a text's meaning was the critic. Leading the charge against the intentional fallacy theory Hirsch argues that there is a vital distinction between "meaning" and "significance." Meaning is dependent on authorial intent. A written text can only "mean" what the author intended it to mean. The author may have unsuccessfully communicated her ideas, but the meaning forever remains what it meant at creation. Significance, however, is the personal, social, and cultural context in which any reader's reaction to the written text takes place. A given written text may have a particular significance for an individual or community, that goes beyond the author's intent. This significance, in some sense, may have no direct connection to original intent. Returning to examine the difference of textual meaning and authorial meaning brought up by Wimsatt and Beardsley, Hirsch makes an important argument that a text gains its meaning from a string or sequence of words that is understood by the "norms" of public language. A string of words can hold several different meanings, especially in poetry, and only the author will be able to definitively illuminate the meaning. Thus, Hirsch argues that the intentional fallacy theory cannot resolve the fact that a string of words can have several different meanings. When meanings are connected to language, a person is consciously making the connection and based on their cognitive skills; therefore, strings of words may appropriately contain several different meanings for different people. Thus, Hirsch believes that "When critics speak of changes in meaning, they are usually referring to changes in significance." Because of this circumstance, when interpretations of a