Title
Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints
Document Type
Journal article
Source Publication
British Journal of Aesthetics
Publication Date
4-1-2004
Volume
44
Issue
2
First Page
135
Last Page
148
Abstract
This article explores the relationship between interpretation and what is normally called 'understanding'. It is argued that different modes of interpretation define different kinds of 'mental uptake' ('apprehension'), and that some modes of interpretation define types of apprehension for which the concept of 'understanding' is inadequate. It is also argued that given a mode of interpretation, the constraints of that mode are necessary in the sense that it is the constraints on how to interpret that define a mode of interpretation. Thus within a mode of interpretation (historical, literary) one cannot interpret freely. Indeed, unconstrained interpretation is not interpretation. In order to illustrate these points the article offers a detailed discussion of two examples. The interpretative debate over the Magna Carta is used to illustrate the difference between a constitutional and a historical interpretation. These two modes of interpretation are then contrasted with literary interpretation, the aim of which is appreciation.
DOI
10.1093/bjaesthetics/44.2.135
Print ISSN
00070904
Publisher Statement
Copyright © British Society of Aesthetics 2004. Access to external full text or publisher's version may require subscription.
Full-text Version
Publisher’s Version
Language
English
Recommended Citation
Olsen, S. H. (2004). Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints. British Journal of Aesthetics, 44(2), 135-148. doi: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/44.2.135
