1. Hans-Georg Gadamer,Wahrheit und Methode: Grungzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1960; 2. Aufflage, 1965. All references are to 4. Auflage, 1975. Hereafter abbreviated W.M. For the most part, citations from the text follow the English translation,Truth and Method, ed. Garrett Barden and John Cumming, from the second (1965) edition, New York: Seabury Press, 1975. Where used, the reference to this translation is given in parentheses after the reference to the original German text. Occasionally, I have departed from this translation where that seemed appropriate for greater clarity or precision. Such departures are identified as such in these notes.
2. Typical of such an approach is Emilio Betti,Die Hermeneutik als allgemeine Methodik der Geisteswissenschaften, Philosophie und Geschichte, Nos. 78 and 79, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1962. Also E. D. Hirsch, Jr. “Truth and Method in Interpretation,”Review of Metaphysics, 18, 1965: 490 ff;Validity and Interpretation, New Haven: Yale University, 1967;The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1976. For the most part, with the exception of Betti, whose critique has proven pivotal, this overview of critical approaches to W. M. will focus on the influence of and reactions to that work in the United States. This choice has been made in order to highlight the specifically philosophical issues that arise directly from Gadamer's own project. Reactions to W.M. in Europe quickly turned tocomparativeanalyses of Gadamer's position with other theories of hermeneutics, including such widely diverse approaches as those of Apel, Habermas and Ricoeur, and the deconstructionist position of Derrida. In the United States, where acquaintance with and discussion of hermeneutics as a general philosophical style of thought is still in its early and fundamental stages, the basic issues of this style of thinking are, as we shall see, still in need of appropriation and discussion.
3. Principal and most influential among proponents of this approach is Richard Palmer in his book,Hermeneutics, Evanston: Northwestern University, 1969.
4. Noteworthy here is David Couzens Hoy,The Critical Circle, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 1978. Other examples of this stage of critical treatment of W.M. include: Josef Bleicher,Contemporary Hermeneutics, London/Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980; and Roy J. Howard,Three Faces of Hermeneutics, University of California: Berkeley, 1982.
5. W. M. p. 369 (translation my own).