Inferring and Explaining

89 t 0 . Only those persons who belong to this club may enter it. t 1 . Only those who are secretly and not pub- licly members of this club may enter it. t 2 . Only the genitalia of members may enter. t 3 . You may bring in your own genitalia. t 4 . Only genitalia may enter. t 5 . The sign was intentionally designed with the double meaning by witty intellectuals. As Fish’s no-nonsense student insists, it is per- fectly obvious what the best explanation of the words on the door is. Clearly, t 0 is the simplest, most complete, least ad hoc, and most plausible account. Linguistic communication and inter- pretation is an inherently explanatory pro- cess. From casual conversations and fun signs on doors to the interpretation of literary, con- stitutional, and biblical texts, the role of the reader (or listener) is always the same. Tere are shapes, gestures, and noises that need to be explained. Given the frst order explanation that they are attempts at linguistic communica- tion, the question now becomes what hypothe- sis best accounts for the meaning in the present context? Authorial Intention Virtually every one of the explanations we have alluded to so far share a common feature. Te gibberish was perhaps a cry for help (or sad attempt to fnd companionship). Te ges- ture might well have expressed his displeasure at your driving. Te “?” text probably was a request for more information. Te sign was say- ing who (or what) could or could not come in through the door. Te following picture is so natural that we hardly think about it, and that, indeed, is the magic of linguistic (or symbolic) communication. Authors desire to communi- cate. Tey use a medium—spoken or written words, Morse code, hand gestures, motion pic- tures, or smartphone texting—as their means for communicating. In the ideal case, when we are unsure of what they were communicating, we simply ask them, What did youmean? If that proves impossible, as in all the previous cases, we must infer what they meant. As Hirsh put it in this chapter’s epigraph, “A text means what its author meant.” textual InterPretatIon e 1. There is a text. e 2 . The text has an author. t 0 . The text means what its author intended it to mean. A Notorious Interpretation of Hamlet It was a bad year, indeed, for Hamlet. He lef school and returned to Denmark to attend the old king’s—his father’s—funeral. When he arrives, he discovers that his mother has hast- ily remarried his father’s brother, Claudius, who has installed himself as the new king despite the fact that Hamlet was heir to the throne. If this were not bad enough, his father’s ghost visits him and relates that Claudius, in fact, murdered the old king. Just as you can go to a romcom or a superhero fick and pretty much knowwhat to expect, playgoers in Shakespeare’s time knew they were to be treated to a revenge