Abstract

This essay examines Jerrold Levinson’s hypothetical intentionalism with respect to the following two objections raised by actual intentionalists: (1) it is arbitrary to exclude certain kinds of evidence, such as the author’s pronouncements of intention, when hypothesizing about authorial intention; and (2) there exist counter-examples. I argue that these objections fail to establish that actual intentionalism is superior to hypothetical intentionalism and that hypothetical intentionalism is more plausible than actual intentionalism. I also suggest, however, that hypothetical intentionalism has difficulties when applied to truth in fiction and thus may not be a complete theory of literary work meaning broadly construed.