IN PURSUIT OF A PHANTOM QUOTATION GADAMER AND PIETIST

In an essay titled “Philosophie und LASZLO KISBALI tone of his remarks is justified. Philologie”, the philosopher Hans- Does a philology moving in the Georg Gadamer pays homage to hermeutic circle really stand so the great classical scholar Ulrich “Pass no judgment about a book high above traditional philology Wilamowitz-Moellendorff.1 The if you have not read it” that it can look down upon the leitmotif, as it were, of this essay Christian Thomasius latter with a patronizing smile? Is is a certain “intrinsic affinity” naive philology incapable of rais- between the Greek words for philosophy and philolo- ing any questions which would, after all, seem to call gy. As one might expect, Gadamer envisages the syn- for an answer? What if, in the midst of the battle of thesis between these two forms of knowledge to be intepretations, the disparaged philologist suddenly attainable with the guidance of sophos. To be sure, the raised his voice and said: But there is nothing written philosopher cannot dispense with philology, yet this is in that part of the text; the passage that you are inter- so only because of the finitude of the human spirit. preting (in one way or another) is not to be found in On account of this finitude, we cannot know “what the text at all? It may be thought that this hypothesis we are supposed to come to know” without a linguis- is implausible to the point of absurdity. After all, who tically mediated tradition (the logos). The philosopher would try to interpret a non-existent passage? Yes, must rely on philology, yet he is also supposed to you’ve guessed right, esteemed reader: Gadamer transcend the latter by virtue of the “exertion of con- himself has attempted this absurdity. What is more, cept”. In contrast to the philologist, the philosopher is he not only attempted it, he has also earned success not primarily interested in the verbatim form of the by doing so—tremendous success. text. Gadamer ties philology to the concept of tradi- Surveys, reviews, and reference works written on tion; yet, precisely by observing the primacy of philos- the subject of hermeneutics after the Sixties seldom ophy within the relation between philosophy and fail to point out that Pietism inaugurated a new chap- philology, he reiterates the premises of this philologi- ter in the history of hermeneutics. The novelty intro- cal tradition. And hence the eloquent laudation to the duced by Pietism is generally supposed to be the tri- philologist boils down to a fairly straightforward mes- partite division of hermeneutics, according to which sage—to wit, that there is good philology and bad the theory of interpretatio and explicatio is followed by a philology, and to decide what counts as good philolo- third part, namely, the theory of applicatio. Again and gy is, of course, up to philosophy. again, and almost exclusively, the only example Philosophy in its turn begins, according to Gadamer, with the recognition that “interpretation is ■ The Hungarian version of this article appeared in Holmi, a central form of our accessing the world [Weltzu- 1998/9, pp. 1275–1289. gang]”.2 The same could be said about good philolo- 1 ■ Hans-Georg Gadamer, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 6 (Griechische Philosophie II). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul gy, which is informed by an awareness that the text Siebeck), 1985. pp. 271–277. can only be accessed by way of tradition and inter- 2 ■ Ibid., p. 273. pretation and that any talk of “the simple apprehen- 3 ■ Ibid., p. 276. 4 ■ This strategy is followed by Ineichen’s reference work for sion of an unproblematically given text” is vacuous. philosophers (Hans Ineichen, Philosophische Hermeneutik Mindful of “the risk of interpretation, we have to [Handbuch Philosophie], Freiburg/München: Verlag Karl smile when someone says ‘but this stands written in Alberg, 1991. p. 186) as well as one of the latest and best ref- erence works in (Henning Schröder: “Hermeneutik text’ (Aber das steht doch da). To be sure, that is a IV,” Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Band XV. Berlin/New very significant fact. What we want to understand, York: W. de Gruyter, 1986. p. 150) however—and that is indeed what we must under- 5 ■ Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, Transl. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. London: Sheed & Ward, stand—is what stands written in the text. Yet can we 1993. p. 307. know what stands written in the text before under- 6 ■ In the 18th century original, the text reads “caussis” [my standing it? This is the famous hermeneutic circle.”3 note, L. K.]. 7 ■ “Klassische und philosophische Hermeneutik,” Gesam- Thus Gadamer ridicules the kind of philology which melte Werke, Vol. 2 (Hermeneutik II: Wahrheit und Methode, ignores the notorious circulus. Indeed, he may well be Ergänzungen). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. right in his discontent with uncritically naive philolo- p. 97. This is an extended version from 1968 of the ency- gy. Still, we must ask whether the condescending clopaedia article, reprinted in Gadamer’s collected works. BUDAPEST REVIEW OF BOOKS 1998 51 adduced to substantiate this claim is a work entitled was misconstrued as a consequence of the method- Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae variis observationibus ological ideal of the Enlightenment.” copiosissimisque exemplis biblicis illustratae, written by an Now it doesn’t take a highly advanced knowledge author named Rambach.4 Another feature of such sur- of to realize that the footnote does not in the veys is the curious fact that Rambach, the ostensible least support what is said in the main text. What is prototype of Pietism, is never quoted otherwise than said in the citation is neither more nor less than the by way of Gadamer. The only exception to this rule is following: We attribute the “subtlety” (or in common the entry on hermeneutics in the Historisches Wörter- parlance, the “solidity”) of interpretation to him who buch der Philosophie, an outstanding reference work in is capable of reasonably and accurately interpreting the history of philosophy, in which the author refers and explicate something—where, by the way, “expli- directly to Rambach cation” is to be under- rather than to the quota- stood more along the tion in Gadamer’s Truth lines of exposition. Sub- and Method. Too bad tilitas, in its turn, is prob- that this summary, which ably best translated as has played such a pivotal “refined skill”. If we role in the dissemination recall the context, we of the history of remember that this cita- hermeneutic application, tion was supposed to was written by Gadamer illustrate (at the very himself. To sum up, least) the thesis that the there is no royal road to Pietists distinguished Rambach by which we between three sorts of could bypass Gadamer. “subtlety”. However, the We might as well take footnote seems to pro- a look at the much-cited vide no more than two passages in Truth and kinds of subtlety. Even Method. The main text more important, the suggests that hermeneu- concept of application tics has an “earlier” tra- does not appear in any dition, which “was com- form whatsoever in the pletely invisible to histor- citation. What is absent ical self-consciousness” from the passage is the after Romanticism and very element that would in which the concept of justify Gadamer’s com- application, so crucial ments on the text that he for Gadamer, still “had chooses to quote. its systematic place. Although the thesis Hermeneutics was sub- about Pietist hermeneu- divided as follows: there tics is of extraordinary was a distinction bet- importance in Gada- ween subtilitas intelligendi mer’s argument, the only (understanding) and sub- passage in which he tilitas explicandi (inter- means to justify it is the pretation); and pietism added a third element, subtili- one just discussed. For instance, in the reference work tas applicandi (application), as in J. J. Rambach. The that I already mentioned, Gadamer emphatically reit- process of understanding was regarded as having erates his claims as well as his reference to Rambach’s these three elements. It is notable that all three are Institutiones, and he adds a remark whose precarious- called subtilitas—i.e., they are considered less as ness will, I hope, become apparent very quickly: “The methods that we have at our disposal than as talents expression subtilitas (refinement), which presumably requiring particular finesse of mind”.5 And it is at this derives from the humanist attitude of competition, juncture that we come across the ominous footnote elegantly suggests that the ‘methodology’ (Methodik) Nr. 235/206, which includes a quotation without of interpretation (Auslegung)—just like any applica- translation: “Rambach’s Institutiones hermeneuticae tion of rules in general—requires the faculty of judg- sacrae (1723) are known to me in the compilation by ment (Urteilskraft), which in turn cannot be secured Morus. There we read: ‘Solemus autem intelligendi through rules”. The text continues: “Moreover, as an explicandique subtilitatem (soliditatem volgo vocant) auxiliary discipline of theology, hermeneutics contin- tribuere ei, qui cum causis6 et accurate [.....] intelligibit ues to seek reconciliation with dogmatic interests (for atque explicat’. (Morus 8) Here the humanist subtilitas example, in Ernesti and Semler)”.7 In other words, 52 BUDAPEST REVIEW OF BOOKS 1998

Gadamer suggests that Pietist hermeneutics, led by A. in Truth and Method, he presents his claims as H. Francke and Rambach, engaged in a fight with his- responses to questions articulated in the course of torical Bible criticism (and its most influential represen- the history of hermeneutics. Thirdly, Gadamer tatives, Ernesti and Semler) and “its negative, enlight- attributes a restorative function to his own theory. ening effect”.8 Gadamer thus repeats his earlier claim To be sure, the history of hermeneutics is the point without any alteration, although in a slightly more dif- of departure and the basis for Gadamer’s endeav- ferentiated context. We shall call attention to the our; however, this endeavour is meant to actualize importance of this more differentiated perspective; for only those intentions of hermeneutics which are his- now, suffice to say that Ernesti’s and Semler’s princi- torically viable. To use Gadamer’s words, the “para- ples for the interpretation of the Scriptures are repre- doxical” task he means to confront is to “revive the sentative of precisely that movement which Gadamer old truth and the old unity of the hermeneutic disci- condemned as an Enlightenment tendency in the pas- pline within modern science.”11 His hope is that sage already quoted from Truth and Method. “[t]he old unity of the hermeneutical disciplines To be sure, Gadamer’s correction only compli- comes into its own again.12 The history of cates things. After the quotation from Rambach/ hermeneutics is, therefore, at the same time the Morus, we read the following brief sentence. “Here illustration, the foundation, and the aim or the intended the humanist subtilitas was misconstrued as a conse- object of Gadamer’s hermeneutics—and this three- quence of the methodological ideal of the Enlight- fold significance should be reason enough to take enment.” Considered in isolation, this proposition is questions concerning the history of hermeneutics hardly conspicuous. After all, it is one of Gadamer’s seriously. Central to the strategy of Gadamer’s argu- most important claims, one that he seizes every ment is the ambition to anchor his theory in histori- opportunity to illustrate and consolidate, that the cal reflection. “The current state of the hermeneuti- concepts originating in humanism were “emptied cal discussion is what occasions my emphasizing the and intellectualized by the German Enlighten- fundamental importance of this point,” he writes in ment”.9 This time, however, it is not that easy to tell reference to application, and adds: “We can appeal just who is supposed to be a proponent of Enlight- first to the forgotten history of hermeneutics”.13 The enment. Obviously, it cannot be Morus, for he is decisive feature of this story is the “old unity of only cited as the one through whose mediation we hermeneutical discipline”.14 If we wanted to know know the passage from Rambach. The only remain- when such a unified hermeneutics based on the ing possibility is that Rambach himself is a propo- unity of application actually existed, however, we nent of the Enlightenment. Yet Rambach is intro- would have to rest content with the only answer duced in the first place as a representative of pre- usually offered by Gadamer: “a long time ago”. cisely that Pietism which Gadamer takes to be the Imprecise as this formulation is, the theoretical antipode of rationalistic Enlightenment. So who is strategy followed by Gadamer would, presumably, this man Rambach—a Pietist or an Aufklärer? Are only be vitiated by some chronological “limitation”. we supposed to like or dislike him? For the chief function of this “old hermeneutics” is, in fact, merely to justify Gadamer’s critique of mod-

8 ■ Ibid. The footnote in question opens the chapter on “The 9 ■ Truth and Method, p. 30. 10 ■ See, for instance, Eric Donald Hirsch, Validity in Interpre- Hermeneutic Problem of Application”, setting the tation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967, p. 42, tone, as it were, for the entire argument. Moreover, pp. 245–65, 252–258; Jürgen Habermas, Theorie des kommu- we know that “application”, and the related con- nikativen Handelns, Vol. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesell- schaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, cepts of “effective history” and the “fusion of hori- 1985. pp. 195–96; Paul Ricoeur, Temps et récit, Tome III: Le zons”, are important not only because they play a temps reconté. Paris: Editions du Seuil, pp. 285–286. pivotal role in Gadamer’s hermeneutics, but also 11 ■ Truth and Method, p. 325. 12 ■ Ibid., p. 340. Gadamer’s italics. because they establish the basis for the widely influ- 13 ■ Ibid., p. 308. ential reception of Truth and Method. Contemporary 14 ■ Ibid., p. 325. disciples and critics alike see the primary source of 15 ■ Ibid., p. 333. 16 ■ Ibid., p. 31. the fruitfulness of Gadamer’s approach in the theory 17 ■ Johannes Jacobus Rambachius, Institutiones hermeneu- constructed along the lines of these notions.10 ticae sacrae variis observationibus copiosissimisque exemplis What is the significance of Gadamer’s specious biblicis illustratae. Cum Praefatione Joannis Francisci Buddei. Jena: Sumptibus Ioan. Wil. Hartungii 1752. p. 9. reference to Rambach? To begin with, every reader 18 ■ Ibid., pp. 805–822. of Gadamer will have noted the frequency with 19 ■ , Hermeneutik und Kritik mit which he uses specific examples from the history of besonderer Beziehung auf das Neue Testament: Aus Schleier- machers handschriftlichem Nachlasse und nachgeschriebenen hermeneutics for the purposes of illuminating sys- Vorlesungen hg. von Dr. Friedrich Lücke (Sämmtliche Werke, I. tematic issues. Secondly, beyond this illustrative Abteilung, Bd. 7) Berlin 1938. It was precisely due to Gada- role, Gadamer intends to ground his own mer’s encouragement that this edition was superseded by hermeneutic program in historical reflection. Thus, Heinz Kimmerle’s. IN PURSUIT OF A PHANTOM QUOTATION 53 ern scientism, to serve as a foil against which “mod- third part being the discipline of application. The ern hermeneutics” can be repudiated as the out- second is that the difference between the three parts come of a decline. is best understood as a difference between three Gadamer’s opponent—often, indeed, his enemy— kinds of subtilitas. is first and foremost the Enlightenment. While the Let us consider the first point: What are the main most frequent targets of his criticism are Schleier- parts of hermeneutics according to Rambach? Due macher and Dilthey, it is when Gadamer recognizes to theoretical considerations,17 his Institutiones is the heritage of the Enlightenment and of historical divided into four books. The first concerns the Bible criticism in their works that the tenor of his “foundations”, the theoretical basis for the interpre- arguments shifts toward an openly polemical regis- tation of the Scriptures. The second and the third ter. For, according to Gadamer, the monopoly of a books are devoted to the various immanent and rationalism based on the paradigm of natural sci- exogenous means of uncovering the meaning of the ence and of a hermeneutics based on the primacy of Scriptures, and to the conditions of possibility of the historical method could only emerge when the such procedures. In the fourth book, Rambach question of application was no longer considered a addresses the question of what we can do with the legitimate issue. Modern science began, in other meaning thus clarified. Since Rambach believes words, when a negative answer was given to the that there are three things one can do with mean- question “does application essentially and necessari- ing, this fourth book is further divided into three ly belong to understanding?”.15 And it is at this chapters, one on the communication of meaning, juncture that Pietism enters the scene with its reso- one on its demonstration, and one on its applica- lute opposition to the spirit of modernity. tion. Hence hermeneutics consists of two major Gadamer’s account is as follows: “Of course other divisions for Rambach, one concerned with the Pietist theologians have emphasized application uncovering of meaning—which can be viewed as against the dominant rationalism in the same way as hermeneutics proper by virtue of its significance Oetinger, as we can see from the example of Ram- and the length of exposition that it demands—and bach, whose very influential hermeneutics also dealt the other concerned with the use we can make of with application. But […] pietistic tendencies were the clarified meaning. In this latter context, the supplanted in the later eighteenth century.”16 These issues discussed are, firstly, how we can communi- abandoned Pietist tendencies are now taken up in cate what we have understood, secondly, how we Gadamer’s program. Hence the strategic signifi- can prove to others the correctness of our interpre- cance of the history of hermeneutics. Historically tation; only thirdly are we to consider the practical speaking, then, Gadamer wants modern hermeneu- consequences of understanding for our own way of tic theories to find themselves between the devil and life. Even this conception of application extends the deep blue sea: preceded and contested by the well beyond the nexus of implications emphasized “old hermeneutics” on the one hand, followed and by Gadamer. At the same time, we may see a good refuted by Gadamer’s “universal hermeneutics”, indication of its relative import with respect to the which resuscitates and brings to triumph the inten- entirety of hermeneutics in the fact that it takes up tions hidden in the former, on the other. The slogan less than twenty pages out of eight hundred.18 But of this restorative crusade is application, which is regardless of the quantitative proportions among turned into a militant motto of “universal the various parts of hermeneutics, what is immedi- hermeneutics”; with this battle cry on their lips the ately clear is that they have nothing to do with sub- heirs of the Pietists launch their assault on the tilitas. The term applicatio on the second page of armies of the Enlightenment. Rambach’s book is related to another concept: the text features sapienter adplicare, not subtilitas appli- candi. Yet this minor piece of evidence betrays a highly significant connection. First of all, it indi- Yet the passage quoted by Gadamer is not to be cates that the understanding of application which found in Rambach’s ominous Institutiones! There is was held by Rambach is at odds with the anti- some talk of applicatio, to be sure (adplicatio in Ram- Enlightenment interpretation of Pietist hermeneu- bach’s spelling), but there is no trace of subtilitas, tics imposed by Gadamer. Furthermore, it helps us explicandi or intelligendi in this part of the book, or find the true “source” of Gadamer’s quotation. anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, with verita- For a long time, Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics ble hermeneutic cunning, we shall demonstrate that was only known in the 19th century edition of even if someone happened to chance upon the Friedrich Lücke.19 Beside gathering the most impor- quote in Rambach’s book, it could not have, or tant relevant texts, Lücke also supplemented them should not have, been written in it. We may recall with his own commentary. This was necessary pri- that the view attributed to Rambach by Gadamer marily because Schleiermacher’s argument, in its has two major components. The first is that turn, took Johann August Ernesti’s lectures on the hermeneutics has three parts in Pietist teaching, the of the New Testament as its point of depar- 54 BUDAPEST REVIEW OF BOOKS 1998 ture. Parts of Lücke’s commentaries are now includ- Misreading Lücke’s word sapienter as subtilitas in a ed in the widely available paperback edition of way which suits his overall purpose, Gadamer for- Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic texts, albeit in very mulates a grandiose proposition about the history small print.20 In Manfred Frank’s edition, one of of hermeneutics. The only evidence that he Lücke’s remarks reads as follows: “Gegen die adduces he derives from a commentary by Morus herrschende Definition seit Ernesti Instit. interpret. N. on Ernesti, which Gadamer presents as a quotation T. ed Ammon p. 7: Est autem interpretatio facultas from Rambach. Quite apart from the context, docendi, quae cujusque orationi sententia subjecta sit, there can scarcely be any excuse for such sloppi- seu, efficiendi, ut alter cogitet eadem cum scriptore ness, especially on the part of a philosopher who quoque. — Interpretatio igitur omnis duabus rebus con- avowedly understands himself as a philologist by tinetur, sententiarum (idearum) verbis subjectarum predilection and training. However, since Ga- intellectu, earumque idonea explicatione. Unde in bono damer is, of course, first and foremost a philoso- interprete esse debet, subtilitas intelligendi et subtilitas pher, we should not bypass the obvious question: explicandi. Früher fügte J. Jac. Rambach institutiones Why make such a fuss about a mere philological hermen. sacrae. p. 2 noch ein drittes hinzu, das sapien- blunder? Why make an elephant out of a flea? ter applicare, was die Neuern leider wieder her- vorheben.”21 It should be apparent now that all the elements we have been looking for are present in Lücke’s commentary: Rambach is there, Ernesti is Respondeo dicendum: there, and so are subtilitas intelligendi and subtilitas 1. For a flea, this one is quite sizeable. explicandi. To be sure, subtilitas applicandi is missing, 2. Moreover, it is a flea which has been indefatiga- but there is reference to sapienter applicare. Even bly jumping from citation to citation, from book to more important, as far as the general content of the book for almost four decades. I cannot say I have passage is concerned, it suggests a principal opposi- read all the relevant works, but one would think that tion between Pietist hermeneutics and historical if someone had pointed out the “blunder”, Bible criticism, an opposition having to do with the Gadamer would have corrected it. Yet even the concept of application. In other words, we have 1986 volume of his collected works features the cita- found everything we were seeking in a Latin quota- tion without any alteration. This time, though, one tion which is not identical to the one cited in Truth might have heeded the divine portent: German pre- and Method. cision nothwithstanding, the footnote in question And now that we finally know what we are looking was printed with an egregious typing error that pro- for, we might as well have a glance at the passage in duces a non-grammatical Latin sentence.24 Morus cited by Gadamer. Samuel Friedrich 3. Crucial to Gadamer’s line of reasoning is the Nathanael Morus (1763–1792) was a disciple of positing of a peculiarly Pietist tradition of Ernesti’s, who edited the methodological treatise of his teacher,22 supplementing it with a lengthy com- 20 ■ Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik. Mit 23 einem Anhang sprachphilosophischer Texte Schleiermachers. mentary. On page eight, where he discusses the Edited and with an introduction by Manfred Frank. Frankfurt requirements that the good interpreter must satisfy, am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993. he writes: “Quae quum ita sint, duo maxime ab inter- 21 ■ Ibid., p. 99. 22 ■ Johannes Augusti Ernesti, Institutio interpretis Novi Tes- prete bono postulantur, subtilitas intelligendi et subtili- tamenti. Ed. quarta. Curavit Christophorus Fridericus Ammon. tas explicandi (4). Nam qui vult alios docere, debet ipse : In Libraria Weidmanniana 1792 (First edition 1761). It primum id, quod traditurus est, intelligere. Solemus is worth noting the analogy between the titles of Ernesti’s and Rambach’s work: Institutio and Institutiones. Here lurks, I am autem intelligendi explicandique subtilitatem (solidi- afraid, the cause of the entire confusion. Could Gadamer have tatem volgo vocant) tribuere ei, qui cum caussis et accu- mixed up his notes? rate (genau und gründlich) intelligit atque explicat”. 23 ■ Sam. Frid. Nathan. Morus, Super Hermeneutica Novi tes- Here, then, is the passage quoted by Gadamer. Too tamenti acroases academicae. Ed. Henr. Carol. Abr. Eichstädt. I–II. Leipzig: Sumptibus C. F. Koehleri 1797. bad that there is not even the vaguest reference in it 24 ■ All that is left from the Latin text is “Solemus autem intelli- to Rambach or the Pietists. gendi explicandique subtilitatem (soliditatem vulgo).” That’s all, the film has been torn. (Hans-Georg Gadamer, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 1: Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. p. 312. 25 ■ See the essays documenting Gadamer’s polemic against To sum up, we may surmise that either the two Jaeger: Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 2 (Hermeneutik II: Wahrheit und Methode, Ergänzungen). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul texts became conflated in Gadamer’s mind or two Siebeck), 1986. pp. 276–300. flash cards got mixed up on his desk. From 26 ■ Ibid., p. 284. Lücke’s commentary, he adopts the thesis that 27 ■ Rambach, Institutiones, pp. 127–128. 28 ■ Johannes Conradus Dannhauerus, Hermeneutica sacra what separates Pietism from contemporary sive methodus exponendarum S. Literatum proposita vindica- hermeneutics is the concept of application. He ta. Strasbourg: Ex Typis Josiae Staedelii 1654, p. 149 29 ■ Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 2, p. 284. then ties this concept to Rambach’s name and ■ work in a manner that is completely ungrounded. 30 Truth and Method, pp. 271–277. IN PURSUIT OF A PHANTOM QUOTATION 55 hermeneutics25 that he fails to submit to detailed Ultimately, what is truly embarrassing in this philo- scrutiny anywhere else. On no occasion does he logical jumble concerns the philosophical heart of adduce any other text to refer to a historical appear- the matter. Having unraveled the bewildering tangle ance of the problem of application. The only excep- of quotations, names, and concepts, and having tion to this rule seems to suggest that Gadamer’s considered their implications with respect to the his- supposed affinity with Rambach is a cursed one. In tory of philosophy, we can draw the following con- his essay titled “Rhetorik und Hermeneutik”, clusions. Gadamer claims that representatives of Pietist 1. It is clear that Gadamer is profoundly dissatis- hermeneutics (Francke, Rambach and their follow- fied with the self-understanding of modernity, based ers) were the first to recognize that “the eliciting of as it is on the natural sciences and on “historical affects, an old chapter of ” functions as a consciousness”. According to Gadamer, modernity “hermeneutic principle”. This is the case because so understood can be traced back to Enlightenment human spirit inheres in every word in the form of a rationalism. He formulates a program which strives peculiar affect in such a way that the very same to break with this tradition. word can have differing meanings if it is accompa- 2. However radical his critique of modernity, nied by different gestures and affects. According to Gadamer’s peculiar conservativism, intent on stress- Gadamer, Schleiermacher’s psychological interpre- ing continuity and historical situatedness, leaves tation, and indeed every theory of empathetic iden- only a tradition validated by history as the sole pos- tification, (Einfühlung) is rooted in a recognition of sible justification for his criticism. It is thus incum- the kind of affective modulation which informs bent on Gadamer not just to expound a position every speech act (especially predication). Once which can be held against the Enlightenment, but again, the key witness is Rambach, whom Gadamer also to present this position as the continuation of a quotes in German: “the author’s spirit exerts such tradition which can be identified in actual history. an attractive force upon the interpreter that the lat- Gadamer’s hermeneutics cannot stand up without a ter gradually begins to feel the author’s spirit as his history of hermeneutics. This is the reason why an own self”.26 But this time Gadamer gives no biblio- objection along historical lines can be relevant at all. graphical specification for his reference. He should 3. In Gadamer’s eyes, the historical tradition have checked the passage quoted with his own eyes, opposed to the Enlightenment is the Pietist tradi- though, for if he had done so, he would not have tion, whose anti-intellectualism, anti-scientism, tra- ventured the suggestion that the Pietists were the ditionalism, and emotionally inflected theology can first to recognize the role of affects in interpretation. provide the historical foundations on which to base For, unlike the first quotation I have discussed, the “universal hermeneutics”. This is the tradition to passage about affects that Gadamer cites does show which Gadamer occasionally refers with the phrase up in Rambach’s work.27 However, a careful reading “old hermeneutics”. of the passage should make it readily apparent that 4. Within the framework of the Pietist hermeneu- in this context, it can only be a quotation. Indeed, tics that Gadamer means to construct in accordance Rambach cites, with precise reference, a remark with what he seeks to demonstrate, the concept concerning the trope of the “clothing of the Word in which bears the burden of demonstrating historical affects” from the same Johann Konrad Dannhauer unity and continuity is the concept of application. who was presumably also a teacher of Spener, the According to Gadamer, it is application which father of Pietism.28 For simple chronological rea- grounded the unity of old hermeneutics and which sons, Dannhauer could at best be called a pre- also makes the current hermeneutic revival possible. Pietist. Gadamer, however, denies every significance 5. In search of a historical justification of this the- to Dannhauer in the history of hermeneutics. sis, Gadamer chances upon Rambach and the Indeed, he makes decidedly condescending remarks “quote” discussed here. In Truth and Method, as about Dannhauer’s attempt at a “Rationalist reori- well as in Gadamer’s later writings, this quote is the entation”.29 How odd, then, that Gadamer wel- only concrete piece of evidence which is supposed comes a claim actually made by the same to illustrate Pietist hermeneutics; everywhere else, Dannhauer, and appreciates it as marking a turning- he rests content with general statements, horribile point, when he mistakenly believes that he is dis- dictu, with commonplaces of intellectual history. cussing the opinion of Rambach, his favorite Pietist. 6. What a careful examination of the ominous quo- We might be tempted to preclude further confusion tation reveals, however, is that a) it is completely by concluding that Gadamer is strongly prejudiced irrelevant to the problem of application—which in favour of the Pietists. Yet that would scarcely be a appears even more disconcerting than the fact that b) revealing observation, for, as is well known, the quotation is not from Rambach in the first place. Gadamer passed a different, rather peculiar judg- 7. Where does the citation come from, after all? ment about prejudices.30 a) With respect to the history of ideas, the citation is significant as an ostensible illustration of the opposi- tion between the Enlightenment and Pietism as well 56 BUDAPEST REVIEW OF BOOKS 1998 NEW FROM THE CEU PRESS as providing evidence to support the thesis that this opposition should be understood in terms of the HUNGARY AND Pietist and Enlightenment hermeneuticians’ attitude toward application. This element of Gadamer’s THE HABSBURGS argument derives from Lücke, Schleiermacher’s commentator. b) The Latin quotation in the foot- note is taken from Morus’ Latin commentary. c) In An Experiment in Enlightened terms of the direct meaning that Gadamer attributes Absolutism to the quotation—the differentiation between two kinds of subtilitas— its origin lies in Johann August Éva H. Balázs Ernesti’s hermeneutics for the exegesis of the New Professor Emerita, Eötvös Loránd University Testament. Translated by Tim Wilkinson 8. Yet Johann August Ernesti, one of the founding fathers of historical Bible criticism, belonged to the One of the most distinguished historians of Central rationalist line of the Enlightenment; he belongs to Europe examines a crucial period in the coexistence the same company which Gadamer blames for of the Austrian hereditary provinces and Hungary. In everything that he deplores. Gadamer’s “universal a Europe torn by wars and revolutions during the last hermeneutics” is opposed precisely to the theory of third of the eighteenth century, political, economic, interpretation propounded by Ernesti, and it is and personal factors intertwined to determine the Gadamer’s wish to get away from that tradition that fortunes of the Austrian rulers and the subjects of motivates his return to an “earlier hermeneutics”, in particular, to the Pietist conception of application. the Hungarian crown who collaborated with them. What our detective work has revealed, however, is Contemporary as well as modern scholars have that Gadamer’s supposed antidote to the Enlighten- taken extreme positions on this period. Contribut- ment actually derives from the alchemist’s laborato- ing to the often-heated debates, Professor Balázs ry of the Enlightenment. shows that it was a vigorous and constructive era in 9. If my findings are correct, even on the most the monarchy. Rejecting the commonplaces of the charitable reading we must conclude that center–periphery approach, she demonstrates that Gadamer’s picture of the history of hermeneutics is the Habsburg monarchy was a center whose reforms opaque, and that his arguments, at least in the form during this period inspired all subsequent reform in which he presents them, are not sufficient to sup- movements in Central and Eastern Europe. port his thesis. “Balázs’s work is a brilliant historical essay and rep- 10. What does not follow from the above, however, resents the peak of modern scholarship on Enlight- is that the role of Pietism in the history of hermeneu- enment political and economic reforms in Central tics is irrelevant. The question concerning the rela- Europe… Her grasp of the issues… is second to tion between Gadamer’s program and the Pietist tra- none… A historiographical achievement of excep- dition remains open. Likewise, the relation between tional value.”—István Hont, Cambridge University Gadamer’s theory of interpretation and the history of “In the great historical debate about enlightened hermeneutics in general ought to be reconsidered. absolutism, the Austria of Maria Theresa and Joseph However, such a reconsideration would have to go II occupies a prominent place. Hungary has been… beyond the revenge of the violated discipline of usually dismissed as a mere backward and recalci- philology. What we badly need instead is a thorough trant province… Balázs repairs that omission… Nei- philosophical examination which is respectful of the ther state-building nor modernization in the Habs- historical as well as the systematic point of view, one burg lands can be understood without close refer- which might finally bring about the reconciliation ence to Hungary.”—R. J. Evans, Oxford University between philology and philosophy. ❏

Éva Balázs coordinates Ph.D. training in eigh- teenth-century studies at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.

304 pages Cloth 963-9116-03-3 $49.95 Paperback 963 9116-10-6 $19.95

Available to customers in Central and Eastern Europe at 50% discount Central European University Press ● P.O. Box 10/22 H–1525 Budapest, Hungary Tel.: (36 1) 327 3181, 327 3138 Fax:(36 1) 327 3183