Emilio Betti versus Hans-Georg Gadamer:the dilemma of hermeneutical understanding of meaning

The paper aims to define the terms used by Emilio Betti, explicate the basic attitudes and the essential problems of his methodical hermeneutics, and highlight fundamental differences and disagreements between Betti’s “methodical hermeneutics” and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s “philosophical hermeneutics”. Betti came to the indictment that Gadamer turned the objective meaning of the author to subjective and historical significance which had led to relativism. The paper first argues that objective meaning of the author or the “autonomy of the object”, against the will of Betti, disappears and moves to the realm of consciousness of the interpreter. When Betti claimed, emphasizing “autonomy of the object”, that objectivity of the “alien spirit” is achieved through the interpreter’s congeniality, he has not strengthened but weakened the autonomy of the spirit. Second, Betti is wrong in stating that Gadamer’s interpreter, referring to the “anticipation of the fullness”, occupies the monopoly of the truth of which he becomes the instance of ownership or control. Third, Betti is wrong in stating that Gadamer’s “philosophical hermeneutics” denies the autonomy of the object, and thus leads to relativism. Gadamer’s “philosophical hermeneutics” provides the autonomy of the text not only with respect to the interpreter, but also with respect to the creativity of the author and the primary reader. Fourth, the article states that the effect of Gadamer’s hermeneutical understanding is that it does not subjectively distort the meaning of truth or objectivity, as Betti wanted to show, but expands and exposes the subjectivity of interpretation – as a legitimate or illegitimate – with respect to what has been written or said