classical exigencies is not easy and requires all the instruments of traditional
criticism. Without this recognition and this respect, critical production
would risk developing in any direction and authorize itself to say almost
anything. But this indispensable guardrail has always only protected , it has
never opened a reading. 19What Derrida calls the “instruments of traditional [textual] criticism” con-
sist in large degree in what is often called grammatico-historical herme-
neutics. What the text meant then for its author and original audience is
“reproduced” in a “doubling commentary” through careful study of the
original language as it was used back then and of the historical setting in
which the text was produced and disseminated.
In typical rhetorical excess, some French authors have spoken of the
“productive” dimension of interpretation as the “death of the author.”
But a close reading makes it clear that what is said to have died is not
the author but the absolute and unconditioned privilege of the author to
determine the meaning of a text. 20 The reader is also given a role. But this
means that the meaning of a text is relative to its many readers, and this
sets off a panic among those committed to the Enlightenment ideal of
objectivity. They fear that the result will be an “anything goes” relativism.
E.D. Hirsch is a good example of this panic. 21 In order to warn against
the peril of a rampant relativism, he fi nds it necessary to misquote Gadamer,
who says that interpretation “is not merely [ kein nur ] a reproductive but
always a productive activity as well [ sondern stets auch ]” (bold added).
Leaving out the crucial words in bold, Hirsch attributes the following
quotation to Gadamer: “Understanding [of texts] is not a reproductive
but always a productive activity.” 22 The dialectical relation between repro-
duction and production has disappeared entirely. My freshmen and sopho-
mores would never have gotten away with such careless reading!
The fear of an “anything goes” relativism is real enough, however, and
two things need to be said about it. First, it is unfounded. If it were the
result of denying absolute privilege to the author, then “Mary had a little
lamb” could mean “The Cubs will win the pennant this year” (from which
we could conclude that Mary didn’t have a little lamb after all). But then
why would Gadamer have to insist on the reproductive dimension of the
interpretation? To deny that it is suffi cient is not to deny that it is neces-
sary. This is clear enough in the Ricoeur citation above 23 and even clearer
in Derrida’s. While doubling commentary, the reproductive attention to
authorial meaning is not suffi cient; it is utterly necessary precisely to avoid
24 M. WESTPHAL