ABSTRACT
Medieval rhetoricians did not explicitly address the nature of textual interpretation, thereby unknowingly inventing a major stumbling block to understanding medieval hermeneutics. Many hold the view that we can’t know what someone didn’t tell us, even though we constantly strive to do so in other circumstances.3 Georgiana Donavin, for one, notes that “George Kennedy emphasizes the ‘technical’ nature of medieval Latin rhetoric rather than the theories upon which medieval techniques were based.”4 Donavin accurately points to a tendency to stay at the surface level when analyzing medieval rhetoric. Unfortunately, the tendency to stay at the surface level overlooks the legacy left us regarding hermeneutics that is implicit-rather
than explicit-within the rhetorical tradition itself, not to mention the literature. Closer examination of the manuals, for example, reveals de Man’s assessment to be accurate: The knowledge of medieval hermeneutics has always been present; we need only confront its hidden mysteries. And, yes, hermeneutic understanding has definitely lagged behind literary form understanding.5 I do not suggest that we overlook the valuable work that has been done, but rather that we apply it in a different context to better explicate medieval hermeneutics.6 This paper will examine five key points in an attempt to begin generating a more clearly articulated hermeneutic understanding by (1) defining the history of medieval rhetoric per se; (2) investigating misconceptions in our approach to medieval rhetoric; (3) discussing the unaddressed concerns for hermeneutics raised by rhetoric; (4) examining more closely the influence that the manuals exerted upon rhetoric; and (5) discussing the function of texts in the larger context of medieval hermeneutics.
