New critics, structuralists and proponents of
‘canon criticism’ all agree that the essential flat in asking about the
intentions of an author, rather than about the inherent meaning of a text, is
that to do so is to abandon literary criticism for psychology. A question about
intention is a question about the state of someone’s mind. Now ‘intention’ is
an enormous issue in philosophy, which we cannot go into detail here. But it
does seem reasonable to ask whether the matter is really as simple as New
Criticism makes it. Surely questions about intention need not be so crudely
psychologistic as to lead automatically to speculations about the author’s ‘inner
life’. At the level of ordinary language usage, most people can distinguish the
questions ‘What did the poet mean by
saying X?’ from the two questions ‘What was passing
through the poet’s mind when he wrote X?’ and ‘What psychological or emotional state was the poet in when he wrote X?’
. . . It is true [that] Wimsatt and Beardsley [authors who warned against
committing the “Intentionalist Fallacy”] did not say a work’s meaning was not
the meaning the author intended: they said that certain ways of trying to
establish what he meant – ‘extrinsic’ ways, involving evidence other than the
text itself – were illicit. Nonetheless, if this doctrine is applied
rigorously, it does tend to suggest that to talk of intention is necessarily to
invoke external factors like psychology and emotion. In any case, it is not
clear why anti-intentionalism should be applied as an absolute dogma. What we
can know about the author from sources other than the text itself is not a criterion of the text’s meaning,
certainly; but it can still provide useful hints as to what the text is likely to mean. There seems to be no
reason why Old Testament scholars should take this aspect of the New Criticism,
valid though it may be within reasonable limits, as placing an absolute embargo
on questions about the biblical writers’ intentions – as though this would
inevitably lead to some kind of ‘Romantic’ theory of biblical inspiration. This
absurdly exaggerates the perils latent in ‘intentionalism.’ (John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in
Biblical Study [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984], 168, 169;
comments in square brackets added for clarification; italics in original)