Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

[Hermeneutical Moments of Historical Methodology]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hermeneutics and Its Problems

Part of the book series: Contributions To Phenomenology ((CTPH,volume 98))

  • 312 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, Shpet looks at Steinthal, who views psychology as the explanatory science among the human sciences. For Shpet, Steinthal’s position requires us to clarify just what a psychological interpretation is. Through it, we can hope to obtain a more precise answer to just what is special about a historical interpretation as a distinctive type of interpretation. Shpet here also elaborates on the views of philologists after Boeckh who tended to identify their discipline with history, such as Droysen and Bernheim.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Steinthal 1880b: 322–323. See also in the same volume the first article, Steinthal 1880a, and also his review of Boeckh’s Encyklopädie, Steinthal 1878b. Steinthal developed his general views more fully in Steinthal 1855: 137ff and in Steinthal 1864. I have already mentioned his lecture 1878a.

  2. 2.

    See, for example, Steinthal 1864: 16: “Because psychology is for history the doctrine of special principles ….” [Clearly in error, Shpet’s text has the quotation speaking of philology, not psychology. It also mistakenly has the quotation appearing on page 15, not page 16.]

  3. 3.

    Steinthal 1864: 27–28.

  4. 4.

    Steinthal 1864: 28–29.

  5. 5.

    Steinthal 1878a: 30–31. In another place, Steinthal also calls the general theory of construction (Konstruktionslehre), as well as the second part of the philological encyclopedia, a “Historik.” Steinthal 1880a: 93 f.

  6. 6.

    [The Latin expression appears in Steinthal 1878a: 31. Shpet here is closely paraphrasing Steinthal.]

  7. 7.

    [Steinthal 1878a: 32.]

  8. 8.

    Steinthal 1878a: 31–32.

  9. 9.

    Steinthal 1878a: 33.

  10. 10.

    Droysen 1897. This work is based on early manuscripts from 1858 and 1862 and meant as a textbook to accompany the lectures that Droysen gave in 1857 on the encyclopedia and methodology of history. [See Droysen 1897: ix.]

  11. 11.

    Droysen 1897: 15 (§14).

  12. 12.

    Droysen 1897: 12 (§8), 15 (§14), 26 (§37). See as appendices to the History the articles “The Elevation of History to the Rank of a Science,” Droysen 1897: 61–89, and “Nature and History,” Droysen 1897: 90–105.

  13. 13.

    Droysen 1868: 19 (§37). [Cf. Droysen 1897: 26.]

  14. 14.

    [Droysen 1868: 10 (§11). Cf. Droysen 1897: 14 (§11).]

  15. 15.

    Droysen 1868: 10–11 (§12). [Cf. Droysen 1897: 14 (§12).]

  16. 16.

    Droysen 1868: 38 (§91). [Cf. Droysen 1897: 49 (§86).] [The Russian text omits the clearly needed quotation marks here. See Shpet 2005: 367.]

  17. 17.

    Droysen 1868: 51.

  18. 18.

    [Droysen 1868: 24 (§47); Cf. Droysen 1897: 33 (§47).]

  19. 19.

    Droysen 1868: 20 (§39). [Cf. Droysen 1897: 27 (§39).]

  20. 20.

    Droysen 1868: 20 (§40). [Cf. Droysen 1897: 28 (§40).]

  21. 21.

    Droysen 1868: 21 (§41). [Cf. Droysen 1897: 28 (§40).]

  22. 22.

    [Droysen 1897: 30 (§41). Cf. Droysen 1868: 21 (§41).]

  23. 23.

    [Droysen 1897: 30 (§42). Cf. Droysen 1868: 21 (§42).]

  24. 24.

    Bernheim 1908. Cf. also his Berngejm 1908: 115f. [A Russian translation of Bernheim 1905.] In Meister’s recent work, interpretation is allotted one page, supported by a reference to a “detailed” presentation of Bernheim. See Meister 1913. Langlois and Seignobos correctly accuse Bernheim of “being satisfied with a single reference to Boeckh.” Langlua and Sen’obos 1899: 122. [This work is a Russian translation of Langlois and Seignobos 1898.] Cf. also Sen’obos 1902. [A Russian translation of Seignobos 1901.] However Langlois and Seignobos are themselves no less simplistic in handling the issue of interpretation than Bernheim. For them, interpretation concerns (internal) critique, and hermeneutics is nothing other than a critique of interpretation. They suppose that the almost highest goal of such a critique is a “clarification of the secret sense” of the interpreted document.

  25. 25.

    Bernheim 1908: 185. Bernheim himself presents a great number of clarifying and supplementary parallel references to his own book.

  26. 26.

    [Bernheim 1908: 562.]

  27. 27.

    Bernheim 1908: 562.

  28. 28.

    Bernheim 1908: 567. Cf. Bernheim 1908: 110.

  29. 29.

    When one is convinced that other authors of a “Historik” take a similar position, one might think that historical hermeneutics is of no interest to them at all, and therefore it would be useless to seek in their writings the clarifications we need concerning this issue. Besides the mentioned works of Seignobos and Langlois and Meister, N. Kareev also limits himself to a remark on hermeneutics, which, in his words, is “a theory of the means of explaining texts as close as possible to the sense that the author himself puts into them.” Kareev 1913: 129.

  30. 30.

    Bernheim 1908: 569.

  31. 31.

    Bernheim 1908: 570ff. [Reading the reference here as in Shpet 2005: 372, not as given incorrectly in Špet 1993: 221.]

  32. 32.

    Bernheim 1908: 575.

  33. 33.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006.

  34. 34.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 316.

  35. 35.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 316.

  36. 36.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 317.

  37. 37.

    See Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 238–251.

  38. 38.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 317.

  39. 39.

    [Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 317. Shpet notes he added the italics here.]

  40. 40.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 317. [Shpet notes he added the italics here.]

  41. 41.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 317.

  42. 42.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 318.

  43. 43.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 319, 320f, 322ff.

  44. 44.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 339.

  45. 45.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 326.

  46. 46.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 319, 336 and passim.

  47. 47.

    [That is, Lappo-Danilevskij.]

  48. 48.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 385.

  49. 49.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 384; cf. Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 396.

  50. 50.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 360. [Shpet notes he added the italics here.]

  51. 51.

    For example, it is not a matter of understanding what is stated in the “Chronicle of Nestor” for the years 6494–6496 (986–988 A.D.), but of clarifying the “cultural type” of the Kievan principality at the beginning of the twelfth century or, perhaps, even the end of the fourteenth century, if one has in mind, let us say, the “Laurentius Chronicle.”

  52. 52.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 359ff.

  53. 53.

    Lappo-Danilevskij 2006: 393. [Shpet notes he added the italics here. Importantly, Shpet slightly misquotes Lappo-Danilevskij here. Instead of “in its entirety” Lappo-Danilevskij’s text reads “in the entirety of its nuances.”]

Bibliography

  • Berngejm, Ernst. 1908. Vvedenie v istoricheskuju nauku, Trans. S. Sabinov. Moscow: M. N. Prokopovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernheim, Ernst. 1905. Einleitung in die Geschichtswissenschaft. Leipzig: G.J. Göschen.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1908. Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droysen, Johann Gustav. 1897. Outline of the Principles of History. Trans. E. Benjamin Andrews. Boston: Ginn & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droysen, Joh[ann]. Gust[av]. 1868. Grundriss der Historik. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit & Comp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareev, Nikolaj. 1913. Teorija istoricheskago znanija. St. Petersburg: Stasjulevich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, Charles-Victor, and Charles Seignobos. 1898. Introduction aux études historiques. Paris: Hachette & Cie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlua, Sharl-Viktor, and Sharl Sen’obos. 1899. Vvedenie v izuchenie istorii. Trans. A. Serebrjakov. St. Petersburg: Popov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappo-Danilevskij, A.S. 2006. Metodologija istorii. Moscow: Izd. dom “Territorija budushchego”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meister, Aloys. 1913. Grundzüge der historischen Methode. Leipzig: Teubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seignobos, Ch. 1901. La méthode historique appliquée aux sciences sociales. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen’obos Sharl. 1902. Istoricheskij metod v primenenii k social’nym naukam, Trans. P. Kogan. Moscow: A. I. Mamontov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shpet, Gustav. 2005. Germenevtika i ee problemy. In Mysl’ i Slovo. Izbrannye trudy, 248–415. Moscow: ROSSPEN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Špet, Gustav G. 1993. Die Hermeneutik und ihre Probleme, hrsg. Alexander Haardt und Roland Daube-Schackat. Aus dem Russ. übers. Erika Freiberger und Alexander Haardt. Freiburg/München: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinthal, H[eymann]. 1855. Grammatik, Logik und Psychologie. Ihre Principien und ihr Verhältniss zu Einander. Dümmler: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinthal, H[eymann]. 1864. Philologie, Geschichte und Psychologie in ihren gegenseitigen Beziehungen. Berlin: Dümmler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinthal, Heymann. 1878a. Die Arten und Formen der Interpretation. In Verhandlungen der 32. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wiesbaden, 25–35. Leipzig: Teubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1878b. Aug. Böckh, Encyklopädie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften [review article]. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft X: 235–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1880a. Darstellung und Kritik der Böckhschen Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Philologie. Erster Artikel. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft XI: 80–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1880b. Darstellung und Kritik der Böckhschen Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Philologie. Zweiter Artikel. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft XI: 302–326.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester, NJ, USA

    Thomas Nemeth

Authors
  1. Gustav Shpet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Nemeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester, NJ, USA

    Thomas Nemeth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shpet, G., Nemeth, T. (2019). [Hermeneutical Moments of Historical Methodology]. In: Nemeth, T. (eds) Hermeneutics and Its Problems. Contributions To Phenomenology, vol 98. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98941-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation