Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Heinrich F. Plett) Intertextuality (Research in T
(Heinrich F. Plett) Intertextuality (Research in T
@ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANS I
to ensure permanence and durability .
ISBN 3 11 0116375
ISSN 0179-4167
Copyright 1991 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may
be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Typesetting: Utesch Satztechnik GmbH, Hamburg
Printing: Hildebrand, Berlin
Binding: Lderitz & Bauer, Berlin
Preface
Since Julia Kristeva happened to invent the critical term "intertextualite" in
1967, an increasing number of studies seized upon it to propagate a new ideal of
literature and literary criticism. They regularly link up with such critical schools
as F rench poststructuralism and American deconstructio~ theory and their respective disciples, but also with a broad range of scholars who are fascinated by
the new term and the many hermeneutic possibilities it seems to promise. Quite
obviously the concept of intertextuality has received many different, if not contradictory interpretations. For some it represents the critical equivalent of postmodernism, for others the timeless constituent of any art; for some it marks the
textual process as such, for others it is restricted to certain exacdy defined
features in a text; for some it is an indispensible category, for others again it is
altogether superfluous - as a term to which the ancient proverb of new wine in
old botdes jusdy applies.
The present volume cannot disentangle the manifold logical and conceptual
controversies that emerged with the rise of this new critical category. On the
contrary, what it intends is to display the variegated facets of intertexuality and
their contribution to all kinds of texts, literary and non-literary. Thus no attempt whatsoever ,was made by the editor to homogenize the contributions to
this book in order to achieve some kind of pretended harmony. In this respect it
differs from similar publications which either assemble articles of one certain
"school" or offer a preestablished design to which diverse authors endeavour,
with greater or lesser success, to adapt their individual contributions. Here the
purpose is to present a number of viewpoints, some more 'progressive' and some
more 'conservative' in bias (with that relativity which is inherent in these
nomenclatures), which prove essential to a better understanding of the intertextual approach.
The structure of this book covers three successive stages which seem necessary for a comprehensive treatment of the subject-matter. Stage I deals with the
foundations of intertextual theory and hence is concerned with its axioms, concepts, and methods of analysis. Stage 11 presents various components of an intertextual morphology which in its entirety forms a classificatory system allocating each intertextual constituent, ecriture or genre its exact structural position. Stage 111 highlights selected aspects of a (yet unwritten) his tory of intertextuality. The individual contributions to each of these stages attempt, each from
its specific point of view, to consider already known facts in a new light or to
open up innovative dimensions of critical insight. They thus provide stimuli for
further intertextual activities.
Essen,June 1991
H. F. P.
Table of Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
I. Fundamentals of Intertextuality
Heinrich F. Plett
Intertextualities .
Hans-Peter Mai
Bypassing Intertextuality. Hermeneutics, Textual Practice, Hypertext
30
Hans-George Ruprecht
The Reconstruction of Intertextuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
Gary A. Phillips
Sign/Text/Differance. The Contribution of Intertextual Theory to
Biblical Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
101
Wolfgang Karrer
Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
UdoJ. Hebel
Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion. . . . . . . . . . . . .
135
165
VIII
Table of Contents
Manfred Pfister
How Postmodern is Intertextuality?
207
Linda Hutcheon
The Politics of Postmodern Parody ,
225
I. Fundamentals of Intertextuality
Hans-Peter Mai
Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography ,
, 237
Name Index,
,.251
Subject Index
, 261
HEINRICH F. PLETT
Intertextualities
1. Approaches to Intertextuality
Currently, 'intertextuality' is a fashionable term, but almost everybody who
uses it understands it somewhat differently. A host of publications has not succeeded in changing this situation. On the contrary: their increasing number has
only added to the confusion. A quarter of a century after the term was coined in
a rather casual manner (Kristeva 1967), it is actually starting to flourish. Originally conceived and used by a critical avantgarde as a form of protest against
establisIied cultural and social values, it today serves even conservative literary
scholars to exhibit their alleged modernity.
1.1. Attitudes
Two groups of intertextualists appear: the progressives and the traditionalists.
They are confronted by a phalanx of anti-intertextualists.
1.1.1. I ntertextualists
The progressives try to cultivate and develop the revolutionary heritage of the
originators of the new concept. Their representatives do not tire of quoting,
paraphrasing and interpreting the writings of Bakhtin, Barthes, Kristeva, Derrida and other authorities. The ideas they propagate consist of an elaborate mixture ofMarxism and Freudianism, semiotics and philosophy. Therefore they are
comprehensible only to elitist circles which are devoted exclusively to the study
of the masters (Morson 1986; Worton & Still 1990). Although numericaBy
small, this group of French origin has succeeded in spreading its activities internationaByand in setting up branches in aB the countries of the Western hemisphere. Regardless of whether they call themselves poststructuralists, decon-
Intertextualities
H. F. Plett
qualified, proceeds along these lines. Such a tradition, after all, harks back to the
imitatio auctorum of Greco-Roman antiquity and to the typological allegoresis
of Hellenism and patristicism, in short would appear to be a venerable practice
of more than two thousand years. The change in terminology, it is argued, did
not change anything substantially. Quite on the contrary: such a devious labelling only affects a progressiveness which does not actually exist. In this way,
intertextuality is put through the critical mills, accused of being incomprehensible on the one hand and old wine in new botdes on the other. One opponent
asserts that he does not und erstand anything, the other insists on having known
it all the time. So many intertextualists, so many anti-intertextualists - that is the
result.
1.2. Concepts
What is an intertext? The answer to this question may be: a text between other
tex~s. At least that is what an etymological view may suggest. Yet it depends
enurely on the interpretation of the preposition 'between' as to how the term is
explained. Several concepts are conceivable. It depends on their nature as to
which constituents are said to make up an intertext and which not. Great importance must be accorded to the role of the author and the reader. Both (and
several other communicative factors) actually make the intertext visible and
co~municable. The important questions a scholar has to put in this regard are:
WhlCh markers signalize an intertext ? - and: Which categories can help to describe it? Here a system of indicators and analytical categories becomes necessary. Such a system presupposes the existence of a comprehensive intertextual
sign arsenal. As long as only a rudimentary understanding of such a repertoire
exists some relevant properties of the phenomenon can merely be tentatively
deduced.
1.2.1. Textvs.lntertext
All intertexts are texts - that is what the latter half of the term suggests. Yet the
revers al of this equation does not automatically imply that all texts are intertexts.
In such a case, text and intertext would be identical and there would be no need
for a distinguishing 'inter'. A text may be regarded as an autonomous sign structure, delimited and coherent. Its boundaries are indicated by its beginning, middIe and end, its coherence by the deliberately interrelated conjunction of its
constituents. An intertext, on the other hand, is characterized by attributes that
exceed it. It is not delimited, but de-limited, for its constituents refer to constituents of one or several other texts. Therefore it has a twofold coherence: an
intratextual one which guarantees the immanent integrity of the text, and an
intertextual one wh ich creates structural relations between itself and other texts.
This twofld coherence makes for the richness and complexity of the intertext,
but also for its problematical status.
H. F. Plett
Two extreme forms are imaginable, which could be expressed in the paradox:
a text which is no intertext, and an intertext which is no text. Wh at does this
mean? The text which has no interrelations with other texts at all realizes its
autonomy perfectly. lt is self-sufficient, self-identical, a self-contained monadbut it is no Ion ger communicable. On the other hand, the intertext runs the risk
of dissolving completely in its interrelations with other texts. In extreme cases it
exchanges its internal coherence completely for an external one. Its total dissolution makes it relinquish its beginning, middle and end. lt loses its identity and
disintegrates into numerous text particles which only bear an extrinsic reference.
lt is doubtful that such a radical intertext is communicable at all.
The examples mentioned are extremes. The assumed text per se and intertext
per se are hardly possible in the reality of sign communication. But according to
the premises of the definitions given above, the gradual participation of the text
in intertextuality and of the intertext in textuality is possible. Thus, a scale of
increasing and decreasing intertextuality can be postulated. In the case of negated intertextuality the idea of textual autonomy is dominant; in the case of
intended intertextuality the governing principle is: "Every text is intertext"
(Leitch 1983, 59).
'
1.2.2. Reductionism vs. Totality
Given the fluctuations an intertext is subject to it seems almost hopeless to attempt to describe it systematically. Such an enterprise would presuppose that
the intertextual flux can, at least intermittently, be arrested. Only then can a
scholar gain a fixed position from which to develop categories, classifications,
and methods to decode it. But such procedures fundamentally contravene the
intentions of the origi~ators of the intertext; for they rigidly maintain the principIe that the intertext cannot be pinned down. In Roland Barthes's words (1986,
58):
[... ] the Text is experienced only in an activity, in a production. It follows that the Text cannot
stop(for example, at a library shelf); its constitutive moment is traversal (notably, it can traverse
the work, several works).
Intertextualities
single semiotic perspective but only their combination constitutes the intertext
as a whole. In this regard, the intertext is no different from any other sign,
linguistic or non-linguistic.
This means, on the other hand, that each semiotic perspective in isolation is an
abstraction of the intertext, even a distortion. A scientific procedure which tries
to avoid taking sides and following ideological imperatives must attempt to
grasp its object from all angles.
1.2.3. Material vs. Structural
Intertexts consist of signs. Signs are part of codes. Codes have two components:
signs and rules. The signs represent the material, the rules the structural aspect of
the code. There exist kinds of intertextuality analogous to the code components:
Intertextualities
H. F. Plett
reproduced in a subsequent text. Another feature of the quotation is its segmental c?aracter, for, as a rule, the pre-text is not reproduced in its entirety, but only
partlally, as pars pro toto. It follows, thirdly, that the quotation is essentially
never self-sufficient, but represents a derivative textual segment. As such it,
fourthly, does not constitute an organic part of the text, but a removable alien
element, or, to put it differendy, an improprie-segment replacing a hypothetical
p.roprie-segment. To sum up these features in a provisio.nal definition: A quotation repeats a segment derived from apre-text within a subsequent text, where it
replaces a proprie-segment.
sion will have to concern the semantic dimension of intertextuality. Its specificity is that the text referent is not external reality but only another text referent.
As complex as this semiotic dimension appears to be, it seems to be of secondary
importance to the problem of intertextuality as such. Another exclusion concerns those subjective pragmatical aspects which cannot be scientifically controlled. This implies the dismissal of an intertextual concept which recurs to
individual associations and vague deja lu impressions. Therefore two analytical
dimensions remain: syntactics and pragmatics. They can be equated with Saussure's concepts of langue and parole and Chomsky's theorems of competence
and performance. Both enable the construction of models which constitute the
framework for intertextuality. The syntactical model prefigures the possibilities
of an intertextual grammar, the pragmatical one those of intertextual communication.
2.1.1. Quantity
'Yith regard to quantity, quotations show a great variability. They usually conSISt of morphological or syntactic units, include more rarely larger sections of
texts, or, in an exceptional case, even the complete pre-text. Some tides of wellknown literary works contain word or sentence quotations: John Barth's The
Sot-Weed-Factor repeats the tide of a satirical poem by Ebenezer Cooke, AIdous Huxley's Eyeless in Gaza refers to a segment of a line fromJohn Milton's
Samson Agonistes (41), and Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
Dead quotes a line from Hamlet (Y.2.376).
2.1.2. cQuality
So far we have tacidy assumed that while passing from the original to the target
text, qbotations remain unchanged. This assumption, however, requires some
modifications. It is true that scientific or judicial texts should quote as accurately
as possible, i.e. without altering the pre-text. Poetic texts, on the contrary, show
their specific nature in that they do not integrate prefabricated textual elements
without alterations, but rather reshape them and supply them with new meanings .. For this reason, it is necessary to examine the quotation with respect to its
quahty. To do so requires the following distinction. The form we usually call
quotation possesses a twofold existence, on the one hand as a segment of the pretextT2(=Q2)' on the other as a segment of the quotation text Tl (=QI)' QI = Q2
signifies intertextual identity, QI =l= Q2 intertextual deviation. Intertextual deviations, like intratextual deviations, can be described in a secondary grammar.
Two levels have to be distinguished here: expression and content, or, to use a
different terminology, surface and deep structure.
The surface structure of citational deviations can be described in terms of
transformations. These are basically identical with the types of transformations
used in stylistic theory and generative transformational grammar, the only difference being that their present field of application is defined in intertextual
terms. The respective transformations are addition, subtraction, substitution,
permutation, and repetition (Plett 1979, 143-149). They refer to linguistic units
of varying length: phonological or morphological, syntactic or textual ones. An
example taken from Ezra Pound's Hugh Selwyn Mauberley may illustrate the
10
In tertextuali ties
H. F. Piett
2.1.3. Distribution
In addition to quantity and quality two further criteria are relevant for the structure of the quotation: distribution and frequency. These are characteristics of
the quotation which, when taken by themselves, seem relatively simple, but
develop a high degree of complexity, when correlated with other features. As
both distribution and frequency have often implicitly been referred to in the
present investigation, they will be treated only briefly here. The .distributi.o~ of
the quotation can be described with reference to the most promment posluons
of the quotation text: beginning, end, middle. The initial position is identical
11
with the tide, the motto or the first sentence, the final position can be a concluding aphorism. That these structural positions, when furnished with quotations,
are important for the understanding of the entire work, is illustrated by T. S.
Eliot's The Waste Land, where tide, motto and concluding formula represent
quotations (pre-texts: Malory, Petronius, the Upanishads). The middle position
in a text (whatever this may be) allows of such a broad range of quotational
variants that it is pointless here to go into further details.
2.1.4. Frequency
If only few quotations occur within a text, their impact on its structure and
meaning may be comparatively insignificant. In this case the determining influence of the quotational conte1xt proves stronger than that of the quotations
themselves. The situation, however, changes, when the pre-text interpolations
increase in frequency. In that case the influence of the context diminishes in
proportion. The final stage in such a development is reached with a text completely compounded of quotations. At this point a context in the sense of an
original creation no longer exists. Its part is taken over by the quotations preceding and following each quotation. As there is a multiplication of quotations, so
there is also a multiplication of contexts. The structural result of this procedure
can be termed collage, the procedure itself montage (Klotz 1976).
2.1.5. Interference
A quotation is always embedded in two contexts: the quotation-text context Cl
and the pre-text context C 2 As these contexts are per definitionem non-identical, every quotation means a conflict between the quotation and its new context. This conflict may be described as interference. To illustrate interferential
phenomena, we shall single out the code as an appropriate criterion. An interference of codes takes place, when quotation and context Cl differ with regard to
language, dialect, sociolect, register, spelling, prosody etc. In these cases we
speak of interlingual, diatopic, diastratic, diatypic, graphemic, prosodical etc.
interference. Codal interferences of the interlingual and graphemic kinds are
often employed in Ezra Pound's Cantos, where quotations from foreign
literatures are rendered in the characters of their originallanguages, e.g. in Greek
letters or Chinese ideograms. Sometimes foreign language quotations are translated into English, sometimes Chinese ideograms are reproduced in Latin letters. These are cases of "transcoding" (Eco 1976). Every transcoding procedure
signifies an assimilation of the quotation to its new context and hence a diminution of quotational interferences.
2.1.6. Markers
A gramm~r of quotation cannot work without a system of markers which indicate the occurence of quotations within the text. These markers are of a deictic
12
In tertextuali ties
H. F. Plett
nature, for they make visible the seams between quotation and context (Cl)'
There are overt and covert seams, hence there exist overt and covert quotations,
depending on whether the author wishes to stress or to disguise the interference
of "frame" and "inset" (Sternberg 1982). The number and kind of textual signals
vary accordingly. Provided a scale of decreasing distinctness is set up, quotation
markers are either explicit, implicit or simply non-existent. Misleading or
pseudo-markers constitute a special class that modifies the first and second
categories.
.
Explicit markers indicate a quotation directly, either by aperformatlve verb
like "I quote" or a standardized formula like "quote" - "unquote" or even by
naming the source directly. As opposed to these intratextual markers, notes,
marginal glosses, source indices, prefaces and postscripts as weH as commentaries are located outside the text proper. If these are jointly published with the
text, maybe even as an integral part of it, they gain the status of a sub text.
Implicit markers are either features inherent in or added to the quotation. As
features added, they may appear, on the phonologicallevel, as pauses before and
after the quotation or, on the graphemic level, as inverted commas, colons,
italics or empty spaces. They are, however, ambiguous in so far as they do not
only signal quotations but other textual features as weIl (for instance, inverted
commas also signal irony). As features inherent in the quotation itself implicit
markers become effective only in such cases when a codal interference exists
between the quotation and its context. In spite of this restriction, however, an
even stronger ambivalence can be imputed to this type of implicit markers. For
differences of the kind described mayaiso refer to non-quotational characteristics of poetical texts, when, for instance, a play includes speakers of dialects or
foreign languages such as the Welshman Fluellen in Shakespeare's Henry Vor
the French lieutnant Riccaut de la Marliniere in Lessing's Minna von Barnhelm.
Because of the ambiguous ~l.ature of implicit quotation markers, the explicit
ones alone seem suited to indicate a quotation in a reliable manner. But even they
have to be considered with caution, for the commentary may be a pseudo-commentary, and the quotation marked as such may turn out a pseudo-quotation
(BoIler & George 1989). Consequently, it is up to the recipient's "quotation
competence" to decide whether or not a quotation is a quotation: ,!,he q~otat~o~
competence is especially challenged when a text lacks both exphClt and ImphClt
quotation markers. In this case the quotational character of a linguistic segment
only emerges on the basis of a "pragmatic presupposition" (Culler 1976; Leps
1979-1980), which, besides the communicating individual, includes the concrete
evidence of the pre-text as well.
13
time, medium, function etc. For the sake of simplicity, these factors will be
subsumed under two central aspects: 1. the sender as point of departure for
functional modes of quotations and 2. the receiver (recipient) as point of departure for perceptional modes of quotations. Although these aspects do not cover
the pragmatics of quotation entirely, they are suited to illuminate some of its
essential features.
If asender, i.e. a speaker or writer, makes use of a quotation, he does so not just
arbitrarily but with certain intentions. These intentions are in their turn modified by the conventions of the chosen communicative situation. As there are
more or less conventionalized communicative situations, it follows that there
are more or less conventionalized quotational functions, too. Stefan Morawski
(1970) utilizes this insight in his typology of quotational functions which he
outlines in terms of a scale of decreasing normative forces. He distinguishes
three functions of the quotation: an authoritative, an erudite, and an ornamental
one. These functional types are evidently realized in non-literary texts but they
unquestionably occur in literary texts as well. The following discussion will
begin with Morawski' s typology and then proceed to delineate a few functional
aspects of the poetic quotation.
14
In tertextuali ties
H. F. Plett
tion in so far as it may question its validity as well. Whereas the authoritative
quotation demands an affirmative contextualization, the erudite quotation is
open to a discussion of the pros and cons. It allows of more than one point of
view, even of its refutation. As for the plurality of functions it is likely to adopt,
this quotation mayaiso be termed "argumentative".
15
The author who re-employs fragments from poetic (pre-)texts in his own
poetic text does so with certain intentions. Any statement of a general nature is,
however, difficult, since it means a curtailment of possible alternatives. A negative common cienominator could be that the author's primary purpose is not to
bring his audience to an immediate confrontation with reality, but only with
mirrors of reality, i.e.literature - sometimes more sometimes less, depending on
the amount of quotations. He withdraws, to use Fredric Jameson's (1972) wellknown book-title, into the "prison-house of language". Hence literary texts
with a high quotation frequency embody the following paradox: The reality of
literature made up of literature is -literature. There is no better illustration of
this than the exceptional case of a quotatin-within-a-quotation in a poetic text
(Smirnov 1983) which denotes a fictional reality thrice removed from factual
reality.
Here is a man who steals, and boasts of his thefts: he covers his walls with paintings, and openly
pro claims they are taken from aNational Gallery. He is not like the Spartan boy who stole and
gained glory if undetected: he desires to be detected, and deliberately leaves clues to guide his
pursuers to their prey.
Authors like James Joyce and Arno Schmidt, however, do not always adhere to
this maxim, but conceal their quotations so carefully that hosts of books and
artides have been written on Joyce and, in the case of Schmidt, a "deciphering
syndicate" has been endeavouring for years to verify even remote quotations
and allusions in his novels. Literature of this kind has apoeta doctus as its author
and requires a litteratus doctus as its recipient.
16
H. F. Plett
1979,233-356; Ong 1982). This type of memory claims the advantage of being
extrapersonal and hence susceptible to a larger amount of literary experience.
The printed quotation storehouses were called Commonplace Books, Thesauri,
Collectanea, Polyanthea; their history can be traced up to Bchmann's Geflgelte Worte and The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. The first successful
author in this field was Erasmus; his Adagia, Apophthegmata and Parabolae
were among the bestsellers of their century. In the electronic age the computer
data bases take over the part of the printed information holders. They provide
man kind with the prospect of an almost infinite enlargement of their collective
(quotational) memory. This development, however, does not make the individual memory superfluous, for it still represents the only instrument of decoding quotations in oral communication.
Intertextuali ties
17
adagia and aphorisms. That has been happening to quotations for centuries. The
result very often is that being devoid of their pre-texts they become wo rn out
like "dead metaphors". 'For this reason they have to be revitalized by specific
("defamiliarizing") techniques in order to regain their semantic vigour.
N evertheless the quotation text will lack much of the friction that originates
from a collision of Cl and C 2 (now no longer existing). The decline in spontaneity may even affect apre-text not yet forgotten as is testified by Hamlet's
soliloquy beginning with the line "To be or not to be that is the question"
(Bloomfield 1976). The result is that this speech belongs to the texts most often
parodied in world literature. Hence there is great danger that the humorization
encroaches on the source of the quotation as well. Meaninglessness and ridicule
- these are the tributes that a quotation frequently has to pay for its farne.
3. Intertextualities
Charles Grivel's dictum "11 n'est de texte que d'intertexte" (1982, 240) claims
that no text exists in isolation but is always connected to a 'universe of texts'
(Grivel1978). Whenever a new text comes into being it relates to previous texts
and in its turn becomes the precursor of subsequent texts. What can be said for
the production of texts also applies to their reception. No hermeneutic act can
consider a single text in isolation. Rather it is an experience with a retrospective
as well as a prospective dimension. This means for the text: it is an intertext, i.e.
simultaneously post-text and pre-text. Stephen Heath perceives a continual process of transformation at work: "Far from being the unique creation of the author as originating source, every text is always (an)other textes) that it remakes,
comments, displaces, prolongs, reassumes." (1972,24) Consequently, every text
is always subjected to a process of repetition. It exists as a perennial interplay
between identity and difference. That constitutes its intertextuality.
3.1. Repetition
2.2.2.3. Stagnation
If texts become so well known that they develop into storehouses of quotations,
the user of these quotations may easily lose sight of their original contexts. The
quotations then become autonomous language units and assurne the status of
3.1.1. Choices
Which kind of repetition constitutes a text as an intertextual one? - An answer to
this question may start from a consideration of the criteria quantity, quality, and
18
H. F. Plett
frequency. These we find in the gramm ar of quotation, too, where they evidendy pose no problem. Yet in special cases certain problems may arise. Thus it
is questionable whether the repetition of a single grapheme - as in George
Tabori's M which refers to Euripides's Medea - is already a quotation. If this is
an instance of minimal identity, the repetition of a whole text - e.g. in Samuel
Beckett's Play - constitutes a maximal one. Is this still intertextuality or just
repetition plain and simple? Proceeding to qualitative criteria, the difficulties
even increase. For one could hold that the material identity of the signs employed - e.g., the English language - already provides sufficient conditions to
enable us to speak of intertextuality. If this qualitative level seems to be hardly
acceptable, how much more doubtful is the attempt of some critics to demonstrate that reality as such is a general text or macro(inter)text. Here a nature of
the sign is presupposed which, in the last resort, has its foundations in the
medieval concept of mundus symbolicus. A concept of this kind is, however,
totally irreconcilable with the notion of the arbitrariness of the sign in modern
semiotics. As for the third criterion, frequency, it remains to decide which
number of repetitions of a specific size and quality make a text an intertext: one,
several, multiple? The same criterion mayaiso help to decide whether, relative to
the quantity of intertexts, a literary period can be labelled 'intertextual' or 'antiintertextual'. All these are questions which can only be answered by a normative
agency. But all conceivable answers will finally barely hide unresolvable aporias.
3.1.2. Norms
The normative agency which ha~ to decide which repetition is intertextual and
which is not can be localized in different kinds of senders/receivers. The subjective type is the productive/receptive individual whose mnemonic ars combinatoria is a source of continual intertextualities. But this agency does not
necessarily distinguish between signs and their repetition but actually res orts to
a fluctuating macro(inter)text of freely available signifiers. The intertextual
norm is based in this case on one's personal experience. The result is often co mbinatorial arbitrariness. To limit it one could devise - analogous to Riffaterre's
'archilecteur' (1971) - an 'archi-intertextualist' who would embrace the intertextual experiences of all past senders/receivers. Yet this empirical reconstruction
of a trans-individual intertextualist will be rather complicated as it is not clear
whether he should be an educated person or somebody with an average knowledge. A third possibility would be the construction of an 'ideal speakerlhearer'
who disregards each concrete intertextual instance. He would operate like an
electronic intertext generator which displays every intertextual repetition according to specific instructions. Here one could object that his restriction to the
competence level prevents hirn from doing justice to individual intertextual performances. To sum up, there are three conceivable administrators who could
define the intertextual norm: (1) the individual, (2) the empirical, and (3) the
ideal intertextualist. They are tied to three concepts: (1) subjective impression-
Intertextualities
19
ism, (2) historical positivism, and (3) generative automatism. Each has its advantages and dis advantages which need not be elaborated here in detail.
3.1.3. Evaluations
Intertextuality d?es not exist in a value-free realm but is dependent on reigning
cultural conventIons. These result, among other things, in four evaluative attitudes: affirmation, negation, inversion, relativity. Affirmative intertextuality
proceeds fr?m the assumption that intertextual repetition is a positive feature of
the .r:spe~tI:e text. The imitatio veterum ideal of classicist poetics realizes this
POSltlO~ m ItS purest form. According to it, the aesthetic quality of a text is
determmed by the degree to which it re-employs the structural rules and pretex~s of the classical canon - with the aim, though, of excelling the ancients in
thelr craft. Negative intertextuality is strictly opposed to this attitude, either
explicidy or implicidy. In the wake of romanticism, it insists on the inalienable
origi?ality of texts, their separateness in relation to any other texts. The ultimate
~oal ~s a s~lf-conta~ned, intertext-free text which - as conceived by some generative lmgmsts - has ItS own grammar and its own vocabulary. A realization of this
postulate, though, seems hardly possible. Even Wordsworth and Mallarme
c.oul~ not do without models. Inverted intertextuality is a more ludic type. We
fmd It most. conspicuously in parody, which transposes 'low' topics, personages, motIfs and actions into a 'high' style, and in travesty, which, contrarily,
transposes 'high' topics, personages, motifs and actions into a 'low' style. Such
pro~edures.engend~r a. reappraisal of values and hence participate both in affirmative and m ~egatlve mtertextuality. If fixed conventions cease to exist and give
way to a multltude of equally valid positions, positive and negative evaluation
are both immaterial. Anything can be combined with anything. This is the field
~f r~lativistic i~tertextuality: Its manifestations are collage and montage, ques~lOmng everyt~mg, even thelr own status. We find this position of a positionless
~ntertex~ual~ty m certain aspects of modernism but even more so in postmodernIS~, WhlCh IS a per.ennial process of self-intertextualization. A prime example of
~hls.phe~omen~n IS Tom Stoppard's Travesties, its tide (plural!) already indicatmg I~S dnft. ThlS last type rounds up a range of evaluative attitudes which prove
that mtertextual repetition is not only a stylistic means and method of text cons~itution but also communicates a specific view of the referent. Similar perspectIves have already been formulated in rhetoric, poetics and aesthetics.
3.2. Transformations
!n our cont:xt transformations are such procedures as trans form textuality into
mtertextuahty. They were already apparent in the discussion of the quotation
(2.1.2.), even if subordinate to grammatical criteria. Here the emphasis will be
reversed. It follows that the criteria mentioned cannot be taken into consideratio~ in every case. The emphasis is less on a segmental notion of intertextualityas m the case of the quotation - than on a holistic one. Texts refer to texts,
20
H. F. Piett
structures refer to structures. The sign character of texts will be defined extensively.lt will comprise not only verbal but also non-verbal signifiers.
3.2.1. Substitution
This type of transformation is most frequent. It comprises signs and structures
and engenders a multitude of possible combinations. Sign substitution can occur
in identical or in different sign dasses. Structural substitution functions analogously.
Intertextualities
21
standard speech (e.g., Standard English) into a foreign language (e.g., High German), an earlier linguistic stage (e.g., Old English), a regional dialect (e.g., Welsh
English), a sociolect (e.g., the language of youth culture), a specific linguistic
register (e.g., colloquial), etc. Examples of an interlingual transformation are the
"English Homer" by Alexander Pope and the "German Shakespeare" by
Schlegel, Tieck and Baudissin. A comprehensive cQrpus of interlingual, diachronic and diatopic transformations exists of Wilhelm Busch's Max und
Moritz. This category comprises all kinds of linguistic actualization, transstylization or poetization (Genette 1982). Details can be found in grammars, handbooks of style, reference works and other utilities. They dearly show that such
'translations' consist not only in the substitution of signs but in the substitution
of structures as well. Both kinds of transformation go hand in hand. This is
particularly obvious in the text type of the paraphrase (Nolan 1970; Fuchs
1982). The paraphrase of archaic, poetic or medical texts requires more than a
one-to-one conversion of signifiers, it requires a linguistic strategy.
Such a paradigm, however, obscures the manifold difficulties inherent in structural substitution. For it does not ac count of generic subdivisions such as epigram, sonnet, and ballad (in lyric); verse epic, novel, and short story (in epic);
tragedy, tragicomedy, and farce (in drama), all of them governed by rules of
their own. These sub divisions are again subject to substitutions which enhance
the number of transformations considerably (e.g., verse epic => novel, novel =>
tragedy, tragedy => ballad). Thus generic intertextuality or intergenericity assumes a highly complex character which has hardly been given proper attention
by genre studies. Matters become even more complex, when the traditional triad
is abandoned in favour of a less hierarchic, more democratic system of literary
and non-literary text types. Irrespective of such divisions and subdivisions it can
be stated that generic intertextuality cannot be detached from its material counterpart. This becomes all the more evident, when the structural rules of the
verbal sign system are partly replaced by those of a non-verbal system (e.g.,
pictorial => verbal in carmina Jigurata or concrete poetry). They result in intertextual hybrids both in matter and manner.
22
Intertextualities
H. F. Piett
3.2.2. Addition
Additive transformations generate further texts out of a given pre-text which
serves as their material source. Hence such texts may be assigned a secondary
status, since they rely on their predecessor for a full understanding. Their autonomy is a limited one which often finds expression in the fact that pre- and
posttext are contained in one publication; if that is not the case, the latter is
frequently furnished with such a title or subtitle as indicates its derivative
character. The referential modality of the intertext may be one of coordination
or subordination. Coordination means a spatial extension of the original text.
This can be located at its end (e.g., Goethe's FaustlI) or its beginning (e.g.,
Gordon Bottomley's King Lear's Wife). More rarely such a supplement resurnes
and expands the central part of a text (e.g., Gerhard Rhm's Ophelia und die
Wrter). Coordinate additions often occur in the novel where they produce
whole series of texts (e.g., John Galsworthy's The Forsyte Saga).
Subordinate additions are prefaces, mottoes, epilogues, postscripts, appendices, notes, marginal glosses, blurbs, and other supplementary texts. Genette
(1987) terms such additions 'epitexts' and distinguishes them from 'peritexts',
i.e. advertisements, interviews, diaries, and reviews which, though closely related to the original text, are not necessarily published jointly with it. He subsumes both text types under the term 'paratext' and arrives at the formula: paratext = peritext + epitext. Peritexts may become epitexts and epitexts peritexts,
according to their manner of publication. One further terminological remark
seems appropriate here. Subordinate additions or paratexts often assurne the
status of what is critically known as metatexts. A metatext is a text commenting
on another text. Hence every learned article or book dealing with literary texts
belongs to this category but also the prefaces, notes, and reviews mentioned
above. Such an invention of ever new terminologies may seem an unnecessary
and even burdensome toil; it appears, however, in a different light when related
to the different kinds of emphasis - transformation, publication, reflexivityplaced on the same phenomenon. Thus like a chameleon intertextuality constantly changes its aspect following the perspective chosen by the recipient.
3.2.3. Subtraction
A subtractive transformation may affect the whole text or only part of it. If it
affects the whole text, the result may be a text type like the abstract, synopsis, or
digest. It is generated either as a shortened paraphrase or an excision of text
segments. An illustrative example of the former are Charles and Mary Lamb's
Tales from Shakespeare, of the latter Tom Stoppard's The Fifteen Minute Hamlet which condenses Shakespeare's play to a ten-page length and, in a "encore",
even to a two-page length, which is a condensation of a condensation. Stoppard's procedure is grounded on the excision of text segments and the piecing
together of the remaining fragments. If handled skilfully, such a collage will
enable the recipient to reconstruct the pre-text. Omission of textual details is a
23
3.2.4. Permutation
This transformation breaks a text down into fragments and rearranges these in a
different order. Its working principle is palpably demonstrated by the Dadaist
poet Tristan Tzara in Tom Stoppard's Travesties. He snips Shakespeare's sonnet
18, written on paper, into pieces and joins them together in a random manner.
No single linguistic sign retains its prior position but und ergo es apermutation.
The resultant re-ecriture is a collage - signifying (almost) nothing. It is embedded - as a structural mise en abyme (Dllenbach 1976) - in another collage of
Shakespearean quotations taken from different plays. The collage-within-thecollage technique can be viewed as being extended over the whole play. This is in
its entirety not only composed of permutations of one text by one author
(Shakespeare's sonnet 18) or of several texts by one author (Shakespeare's plays)
but of several texts by several authors (0. Wilde's The Importance of Being
Earnest, J. Joyce's Ulysses, etc.). Texts border on texts, are based on texts, transform texts, retreat into texts - a perennial process of inter-textualization.
3.2.5. Complexities
Intertextual transformations take place within the horizontal (syntagmatic) and
vertical (paradigmatic) axes of sign communication. Syntagmatic intertextuality,
when multiplied, results in intertext series, paradigmatic intertextuality, when
multiplied, creates intertext condensations.
3.2.5.1. Serialization
Syntagmatic intertextuality is modelled on the following transformational paradigm:
(1) onetext => one text
i.e. the prototype of intertextuality which, however, remains an abstraction
in its one-dimensionality.
(2) one text => many texts
i.e. aseries of intertexts proceeding from one text.
(3) many texts => one text
i.e. a collage or cento, if composed of heterogeneous pre-text segments.
24
Intertextualities
H. F. Plett
25
3.2.5.2. Condensation
I. intermedial:
1. verbal
=> non-verbal
=> English
=> German
26
,I
I
H. F. Plett
than a progressive he does not hunt after sounds in a diffuse echo chamber but
rather prefers well-ordered "archives" (Foucault) of meticulously researched
intertextualities. These contain the intertextual chronicles of every code and
register its continuities and discontinuities. Such a concept, however, harbours
some dangers. Although proclaimed as early as 1968, "the death of the author"
(Barthes) did not actually occur in intertextual theory; for author and reader
had, at least implicitly, always been a matter of consideration. Of greater weight,
however, seems to be the neglect of the socio-cultural context (Ette 1985). This
situation encourages an aesthetic tendency comparable to that of New Criticism. It can be avoided by integrating the third semiotic dimension, semantics.
From such a methodological position an intercultural remodelling of the intertextuality concept would seem to liberate the intertext from its prison-house of
signs and structures and make it resurne its dialogue with reality (Morgan 1985,
8-13; Orr 1986).
Intertextuality is not a time-bound feature in literature and the arts.
Nevertheless it is obvious that certain cultural periods incline to it more than
others. The 20th century has already witnessed two such phases: modernism
and postmodernism. In the modernist period, intertextuality is apparent in every section of culture: literature (Eliot, Joyce), art (Picasso, Ernst), music
(Stravinsky, Mahler), photography (Heartfield, Hausmann), etc., even if it is
interpreted in different ways. Postmodernism shows an increase of this trend
which now includes film (e.g., Woody Allen's Play itAgain, Sam) and architecture (e.g., Charles Moore's Piazza d'Italia, New Orleans). As the climax of this
fashion may be regarded pseudo-intertextuality, which means a text referring to
another text that simply does not exist (e.g., Jorge Luis Borges's Ficciones). With
reference to Borges, J ohn Barth, himself an author of intertextual stories and
novels, writes in his essay "The Literature of Exhaustion" (1982, 1):
By "exhaustion" I don't mean anything so tired as the subject of physical, moral, or intellectual
decadence, only the used-upness of certain forms or exhaustion of certain possibilities - by no
means necessarily a cause for despair.
The scepticism inherent in such a statement raises the questions : Can intertextuality be equated with cultural decadence? Are we dealing with Alexandrianism,
mere epigonality here? In his book Statt einer Literaturgeschichte, Walter Jens
(1978, 13) made an apt comment on the historicity and value of a citation culture:
In einer Sptkultur wird die Welt berschaubar. Man ordnet und sammelt, sucht nach Vergleichen und findet berall Analogien. Der Blick gleitet nach rckwrts; der Dichter zitiert, zieht
Vergangenes, ironisch gebrochen, noch einmal ans Licht, parodiert die Stile der Jahrtausende,
wiederholt und fixiert, bemht sich um Reprsentation und zeigt das schon Vergessene in neuer
Beleuchtung. Alexandrien ist das Eldorado der Wiederentdeckung, der Hellenismus die hohe
Zeit posthumer Nekrologe. Statt Setzungen gibt man Verweise: Amphitryon 38, Ulysses, die
Iden des Mrz. Wenn die Gegenwart keinen Schatten mehr wirft, braucht man, um die eigene
Situation zu bestimmen, die Silhouette des Perfekts; wenn es den Stil nicht mehr gibt, mu man
die Stile beherrschen: auch Zitat und Montage sind Knste, und das Erbe fruchtbar zu machen,
erscheint uns als ein Metier, das aller Ehren wert ist.
In tertextuali ties
27
Bibliography
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
1981
The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. M. Holquist, tr. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin,
Tex.lLondon: University of Texas Press.
Barth,John
1982
The Literature 0/ Exhaustion and The Literature 0/ Replenishment. Northridge,
Calif.: Lord John Press.
Barthes, Roland ,1968
"Lamort de l'auteur." Manteia 5,12-17. - Engl. tr.: "The Death of the Author." In
Stephen Heath, ed. Image - Music - Text. London: Fontana/New York: HilI &
Wang, 1977, 142-148.
1973
Le Plaisir du texte. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
1986
"From Work to Text." In Barthes. The Rustle 0/ Language. Tr. Richard Howard.
New York: Hill & Wang, 56-64.
Bloom, Harold
1973
The Anxiety o/Influence: A Theory 0/ Poetry. London/Oxford/New York: Oxford
UP.
Bloomfield, Morton W.
1976
"Quoting and Alluding: Shakespeare in the English Language." In G. B. Evans, ed.
Shakespeare: Aspects o/Influence. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1-20.
BoUer, Paul F. & John George
1989
They Never Said lt: A Book 0/Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions.
New York: Oxford UP.
Bryson, N orman
1988
"Intertextuality and Visual Poetics." Style 2212, 183-193.
Compagnon, Antoine
La seconde main ou le travail de la citation. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
1979
Culler, Jonathan
1976
"Presupposition and Intertextuality." Modern Language Notes 91, 1380-1396.
Dllenbach, Lucien
1976
"Intertexte et autotexte. " Pohique 7127, 282-296.
Eco, U mberto
1976
A Theory o/Semiotics. Bloomington, Ind.lLondon: Indiana UP.
Ette, Ottmar
1985
"Intertextualitt: Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmerkungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift/r Literaturgeschichte 9, 497-519.
Fuchs, Catherine
1982
La paraphrase. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
'
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
1987
Seuils. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
28
In tertextuali ties
H. F. Plett
Grivel, Charles
"Les universaux de texte." Litterature 30, 25-50.
1978
1982
"Theses preparatoires sur les intertextes. " In Renate Lachmann, ed. Dialogizitt.
Mnchen: Fink, 237-248.
____ Harty,E.R.
1985
"Text, Context, Intertext." Journal of Literary Studies 1/2,1-13.
Heath, Stephen
1972
The Nouveau Roman: A Study in the Practice ofWriting. London: Elek Books.
J ameson, Fredric
1972
The Prison-House of Language. Princeton, N.].: Princeton UP.
Jenny, Laurent
1976
"La strategie de la forme." Poetique 7/27, 257-281.
Jens, Walter
Statt einer Literaturgeschichte. Pfullingen: Neske, 7th ed.
1978
Kellett, E. E.
Literary Quotation and Allusion. Port Washington, N.Y./London: Kennikat Press
1969
(orig. 1933).
Klotz, Volker
"Zitat und Montage in neuerer Literatur und Kunst." Sprache im technischen Zeital1976
ter 57-60,259-277.
Kristeva, Julia
1967
"Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman." Critique 33/239, 438-465.
Leitch, Vincent B.
1983
Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction. London: Hutchinson.
Leps, M.-C.
1979-1980 "For an Intertextual Method of Analyzing Discourse : A Case Study of Presuppositions." Europa. AJournal of Interdisciplinary Studies 3/1,89-103.
Miller, Owen
1985
"Intertextualldentity." In MarioJ. Valdes & OwenMiller, eds. Identity ofthe Literary Text. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press, 19-40.
Morawski, Stefan
'
"The Basic Functions of Quotation." In A. J. Greimas, ed. Sign, Language, Culture.
1970
The Hague: Mouton, 690-705.
Morgan, Thais E.
"
1985
"Is there an Intertext in this Text?: Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to
Intertextuality." AmericanJournal ofSemiotics 3,1-40.
Morris, Charles William
1938
Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morson, Gary Saul, ed.
1986
Bakhtin: Essays and Dialogues on His Work. Chicago/London: University of
Chicago Press.
Nolan, Rita
1970
Foundations for an Adequate Criterion of Paraphrase. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Ong, Walter J.
1982
Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London/New York:
Methuen.
Orr, Leonard
"Intertextuality and the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics." College English 48,
1986
811-823.
Plett, Heinrich F.
1979
Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse: Semiotik, Linguistik, Rhetorik. Heidelberg:
Quelle & Meyer, 2nd ed.
29
"The Poetics of Quotation." In J anos S. Petfi & Terry Olivi, eds. Von der verbalen
Konstitution zur symbolischen Bedeutung - From Verbal Constitution to Symbolic
M eaning. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 313-334.
Riffaterre, Michael
1971
Essais de stylistique structurale. Paris: Flammarion.
1980
The Semiotics of Poetry. London: Methuen.
Roventa- Frumu~ani, Daniela
1985
"Intertextualite e(s)t interaction." Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 30, 23-30.
Ruprecht, Hans-George
1983
"Intertextualite." Texte 2, 13-22.
Smirnov, Igor P.
1983
"Das zitierte Zitat." In W. Schmid/W.-D. Stempel, eds. Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualitt. Wien: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach,
273-290.
Stern berg, Meir
1982
"Proteus in Quotation-Land: Mimesis and Forms of Reported Discourse." Poetics
Today 3/2, 107-156.
Worton, Michael & Judith Still, eds.
1990
Intertextuality: Theories and Practice. Manchester/New York: Manchester UP.
1988
Bypassing Intertextuality
HANS-PETER MAI
Bypassing Intertextuality
Hermeneutics, Textual Practice, Hypertext
"Nothing is Text but what was spoken in the
Bible, and meant there for Person and Place, the
rest is Application, wh ich a discreet Man may do
weIl; but 'tis his Scripture, not the Holy Ghost."
Gohn Seiden)
"Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny."
(Frank Zappa)
1. I ntroduction
This essay will attempt to discuss intertextuality in the contemporary
framework of literary studies. It will be argued that a restricted conception of
the term, as it has been developed with the intention of making the concept more
applicable, is not only contrary to the original intention of Julia Kristeva who
proposed the term, but also does not possess any significant heuristic advantages
over more tradition al approach~s. Consequently, the reigning question will be:
what can it mean today to 'prc;tctice intertextuality' - wh ich I take to be an enterprise clearly distinct from older notions of literary scholarship.
I will not attempt to sketch'in detail the unfolding of the intertextuality debate
over the years. In this regard a couple of valuable introductions have already
been published by T. Morgan (1985), M. Pfister (1985 a), O. Ette (1985) and L.
Ping Hui (1983/84). In addition, E. Rusinko (1979) has contributed an informative article on Soviet precursors. These authors discuss outstanding contributions in the field of intertextual theory and practice. I will concentrate on a
reconstruction of the initial stages of the theoretical discussion - focusing on
Julia Kristeva, who suggested the term, and on her teacher and 'ally' Roland
Barthes - and thereby try to provide a perspective for an evaluation of developments since then.
31
32
Bypassing Intertextuality
H.-P. Mai
The opposing, clearly restricted concept of intertextuality is prevalent in several German anthologies touching upon the subject published recently (Lachmann 1982; Schmid & Stempel 1983; Stierle & Warning 1984; Broich & Pfister
1985). Scholars therein principally welcome the obviously stimulating idea of
'intertextuality', but only insofar as it proves its usefulness within the tradition al
confines of literary and general art theory and interpretation. In this context,
some taxonomic models of intertextual relationships have been developed
(Grivel1975; Grbel1983; Lachmann 1984; Lindner 1985; Plett 1985; SchulteMiddelich 1985). Yet explicitly revisionist concepts of intertextuality have also
been advocated (Stierle 1982; Schabert 1983). Serious doubts concerning an extended, poststructural conception of intertextuality are common to most of
these scholars. Yet Pfister (1985 a, 18) has correctly pointed out that a simple
reduction of the complexities of the concept is no adequate reaction.
Traditional text linguistics seems to have co me into contact with the term only
tangentially. Two recent surveys at least mention the term (Nth 1985, 457;
Schlieben-Lange 1988, 1206 f.), yet only with reference to Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) who favour a technological reduction of the intertextual concept to "a
procedural control upon communicative activities at large" (206). An article by
Lemke (1985) is exceptional in this regard.
All in all, discussions of intertextuality seem to be most comfortably localized
within the wide domain of contemporary semiotics, although one should not
underestimate the diversity of approaches which can be found under this heading. Faced with such definitional difficulties, I hope that by reconstructing the
historical intellectual context in whibh 'intertextuality' originated, we may. be
better able to understand the present confusion and factiousness of intertextual
scholars.
But before I proceed in this direction I would like to rule out some other
approaches to the topic under discussion. First, an etymological unraveling of
the word 'intertextuality' does not seem to be particularly helpful for und erstanding the term (cf. Ruprecht 1983, 13; a much more level-headed explication
can be found in Harty 1985, 2 f.). After all, Greek and Latin morphemes have
always served as a reservoir for neologisms. But Kristeva, for one, did not expound her concept of intertextuality by reference to (or even reverence for) the
ancients. Her points of reference are not PlatolAristotlelOvid but HegellMarxl
H usserllF reud/Saussure/Chomsky.
Second, I am very skeptical of a historical approach which tries to point out
similarities between Renaissance notions of imitatio and intertextuality (Carron
1988; Schoeck 1984). There seems to be a fundamental difference in the way in
which 'intertextual' strategies were pursued then and now. By imitatio the author tried to position hirnself within an accepted order of literary works; he tried
to partake of it even in the act of distinguishing hirnself from it (even a parodic
attitude was contained bythe classicalmodel; cf. Ruthven 1979, 102-109). Yet as
conceived in contemporary art theory, an intertextual effort would not be so
much an (even reluctant) imitation of venerable precursors as, at least, a subver-
33
sive use of a traditional stock of artistic means of expression. Only if one chooses
to ignore the poststructuralist indictment of authority can one draw parallels
between 'intertextuality' then and now.
Last, M. Bakhtin's relevance for the intertextual debate is rather doubtful. It is
true that Kristeva coined the term 'intertextuality' for the first time in 1966 in
conjunction with a review of his work (Kristeva 1986 b). But much has been
written about his notion of 'dialogism' without 'intertextuality' being mentioned at all. Bakhtin seems to be considered mainly with regard to other contexts: sociology, formalism, generalliterary theory etc. (cf. e.g. Lehmann 1977;
Gnther 1981; Carroll 1983; Davidson 1983; LaCapra 1983; White 1984;
Swingewood 1986). Some critics even definitely deny any affinity between poststructuralism and Bakhtin's theories (e.g. Shukman 1980, 223). Others merely
assert a connexion (Bove 1983). Only Pechey, as far as I know, presents a contextual reading of Bakhtin which helps to clarify his possible relevance for Kristeva' s poststructuralist intertextual concept. Kristeva, it can safely be said, appropriated Bakhtin's ideas for her own purposes. The closest similarity with her
concept of intertextuality is suggested by Feral (who, in turn, is mainly paraphrasing Kristeva):
From Bakhtin Kristeva borrows the contextualization of any signifying practice [... ] in an historicalor social frame. Attempting to replace the static subdivision of texts by a model in which
the literary structure does not merely exist, but elaborates itself in relationship to another structure, Bakhtin [postulated] that the word was no longer to be considered as a point of fixed
meaning, but as a place - a place where various textual surfaces and networks [ ... ] cross. (Feral
1980,275)
Therefore the following inquiry will take its departure from Kristeva's writings
as the original source of the contemporary intertextuality debate.
f,T,
34
H.-P. Mai
. Bypassing Intertextuality
'hard sciences'. Even more temptingly, linguistic structuralism promised to provide a master theory of all cultural production. Still, literary structuralism was
not so 'different' that it would not continue to cater for the tradition al notion of
intratextual autonomy, of the self-contained artistic object (as for the roots of
this notion cf. Paulson 1988,115-121). After all, linguistic constructs were to be
explained solely by reference to linguistic means. In addition, the new structuralist approach provided a conceptual space in which an opposition against
traditional forms of scholarship could articulate itself - untainted by academically still suspicious inclinations of an explicitly political kind. Of course, the
structuralist claims were not accepted undisputedly. But the arguments levelled
against them were largely of a traditionally hermeneutic kind and therefore
could be interpreted as intellectual rearguard operations.
But there were also attempts to reconcile the structuralist spirit with hermeneutical notions. P. Ricoeur is an outstanding example in this regard. One of
his essays, originally published in 1970, well illustrates the then virulent tensions
in literary criticism. It has the further advantage of explicitly taking into account
ideas of a post-linguist structuralism. Ricoeur starts by making an important
distinction: a text is not merely fixed (personal) speech, text "is written precisely
because it is not said. [... ] a text is really a text only when it is not restricted to
transcribing an anterior speech" (Ricoeur 1981 a, 146). In insisting on a qualitative difference between speech and written text, he agrees with the poststructuralist demand for a trans-linguistic approach to texts. He also points out that
an analogy of text and dialogue is inappropriate unless major qualifications are
made (146 f.).2 Language as text, Ricoeur perceives, has a very special relation
towards referentiality:
[I]n living speech, the ideal sense of what is said turns towards the real reference, towards that
'about which' we speak. At the limit, this real reference tends to merge with an ostensive designation where speech rejoins the gest~re of pointing. Sense fades into reference and the latter into the
. act of showing.
This is no longer the case when the text takes the place of speech. The movement of reference
towards the act of showing is intercepted [ ... ] I say intercepted and not suppressed. (148)3
I
As we can see, Ricoeur does not want to do away with referentiality completely
(which deconstructive theorists such as Derrida advocate). He holds that the
meaning of texts can be recovered through a structural hermeneutics: "As we
This assertion, if it holds true, casts a serious doubt upon scholarly approaches which would
want to integrate literature into the domain of communication technology (cf. Beaugrande &
Dressler 1981); it also sheds considerable doubt on glib appropriations of Bakhtin's 'dialogism' .
3 Alluding to poststructuralist notions he continues with: "[I]t is in this respect that I shall distance
myself from what may be called henceforth the ideology of the absolute text." (148) Also,
Ricoeur does retain the notion of authorial intention (147), though in a heavily mitigated form: to
hirn the author is always necessarily his own reader and as such always at a distance from his own
text (he is never a speaker who can be imagined expressing his personal self in his utterances)
(149). It follows that "the intended meaning of a text is not essentially the presumed intention of
the author" (161).
2
35
shall see, the text is not without reference; the task of reading, interpretation,
will be precisely to fulfil the reference" (148). Yet it is a special kind of reference:
as the reference to real objects is suspended in a text, the reference to other texts
gains importance, as only the latter ensures the text's comprehensibility. Yet the
meaning thus accruing to the text is much more flexible than the meaning of
speech in everyday communication:
In virtue of this obliteration of the relation to the world, each text is free to enter into relation
with all the other texts which come to take the place of the circumstantial reality referred to by
living speech. This relation of text to text, within the effacement of the world about which we
speak, engenders the quasi-world of texts or literature. (148 f.)
Ricoeur sees two distinct critical approaches resulting from such a notion of the
text: one is a formalist/ structuralist approach (as exemplified also by the close
reading of American N ew Critics), the other is a hermeneutic one:
[T]he quasi-world of texts engenders two possibilities. We can, as readers, remain in the suspense
of the text, treating it as a worldless and authorless object; in this case we explain the text in terms
of its internal relations, its structure. On the other hand, we can lift the suspense and fulfil the text
in speech, restoring it to living communication; in this case, we interpret the text. (152)
Ricoeur clearly opts for the hermeneutic alternative. It only, he avers, makes
possible a meaningful encounter of the reader with the text:
[T]he interpretation of a text culminates in the self-interpretation of a subject who thenceforth
understands hirns elf better, understands hirns elf differently, or simply begins to understand himself. [ ... ] explanation is nothing if it is not incorporated as an intermediary stage in the process of
self-understanding. (158)
The traditional notion of hermeneutic understanding has been advocated most convincingly by
H. G. Gadamer and has found a severe critic in J. Habermas (cf. Hauff 1985, 19-34; Ricoeur
1981 b). The resulting quarrel became part of a much more comprehensive, politically motivated
debate in which poststructuralists partook. This is not the place to trace the more strictly political
controversy of this period and its ramifications, particularly in and with regard to literary
studies; for further information cf. Jameson 1985; Hohendahl1980.
36
H.-P. Mai
4. Versions
Without a clear understanding of the various concepts of 'text' it is a bold enterprise to talk about intertextuality. Surprisingly, few commentators, especially
among its detractors, try to comprehend intertextuality under this heading.
Weimann (1985, 284-85) demonstrates that the word 'text' can be conceived of
differently, depending on the respective intellectual context. On the one hand,
there is the empirical Anglo-American concept based on notions of discourse as
language event. This is to be distinguished from structuralist concepts (of European des cent) in which the text is expressive of an abstract system which conditions it. Structuralist concepts can be enlarged, by the inclusion of non-linguistic
sign activities, into semiotic models. Poststructural, 'textual' notions of text replace the notion of text as a mere function of a linguistic system with the notion
of text as an 'activity'. What they also have in common is their critical use of the
idea of 'text', which finds its expression, on the one hand, in their self-awareness
of their own procedures and, on the other hand, in their attempts to point out
the ideological implications of seemingly objectively given entities. Last, the
concept of text diametrically opposed to this all-encompassing 'textualization'
is the one as endorsed by the historical tradition of philology - although even
here the influence of poststructuralist notions is making itself felt (cf. Martens
1989).
Brtting points out the ideological implications of the tradition al notion of
'text', current in academic literary criticism when Kristeva and her combattants
developed their counterstrategy (Brtting 1976,21-24). He also tries to sum up
their new concept of 'textuality', although he cautions that "die avantgardistischen Theoretiker [ ... ] den Begriff texte nie streng formuliert haben und dies in
gewisser Weise sogar unmglich ist [the avantgarde theorists never strictly defined the term texte, which is, in a way, even impossible]" (73 f.; my translation).
Who were these theorists?
. Bypassing Intertextuality
37
[.. .J.
5
The influence of Marxist theory was mediated by Althusser's writings (his theory is sketched by
Seung 1982,112-118; cf. too Coward & Ellis 1977, 69-77; Jameson 1985). Their literary application by Macherey is discussed in Frow (1986, 18-29). - For a detailed historical presentation of
the role of Freudian psychoanalysis and Lacan versus the French psychiatrie establishment, cf.
Turkle (1978). Bowie (1979) provides a good (and readable) introcluction to Lacan's theories.
Among the contributors to the standard anthology ofTel Quelian writings are Barthes, Kristeva,
Derrida, Foucault, SoUers, to name but those who are still prominent French theorists (cf. Tel
QueI1968).
Harland (1987) explains very well the philosophical underpinnings of this new turn, from base to
superstructure, in marxist political thinking.
38
H.-P. Mai
[the often pointed and radical critique of the French avantgarde in literary theory cannot be
understood if one is not aware against which literary traditions and ideologies, against which
literary institutions it tries to articulate itself. The nineteenth century which invented it survives
in the explication de texte.]
(32; my translation)
This tradition al approach to literary texts still survives in the French critique
universitaire and the critique scolaire (69).8
4.1. Kristeva
The persons referred to most often with regard to poststructuralist notions of
textuality/intertextuality are Julia Kristeva, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida. 9 In the late 1960s, Kristeva subscribed to Tel Quelian notions of textual, i.e.
cultural, revolution. She tried to achieve this objective by fusing ideas from
philosophy (Husserl/Derrida), political science (Marxl Althusser) and
psychoanalysis (Freud/Lacan) with linguistic-structuralist procedures
(Chomsky) and formallogic (cf. Adriaens 1981). In a way, she borrowed from
the prestige these disciplines possessed while, at the same time, trying to subvert
them. On the terminologicallevel this resulted in a deliberate conceptual muddle. Later on, her criticism acquired a more strictly psychoanalytical tinge. Presentations of her notions frequently do not differentiate enough between her
'structuralist' phase prior to the publication of La revolution de langage poetique in 1974 and her predominantly psychoanalytical theory starting with this
very book. (An outline of her later thought can be found in Kristeva 1975). She
coined the term 'intertextuality' during the earlier phase.
In her essay "Semiotics: A Critical Science and/or a Critique of Science",
Kristeva (1986 a) grounds her enterprise clearly in the intellectually unstable
period of the late 1960s - she diagnoses a "cultural subversion which our civilization is undergoing" (75). One major point of reference is Marx, although
Freudian influence already makes itself clearly felt; but her emphasis is on language theory. And, above all, hers is a critical and a self-critical project. She
states: "In a decisive move towards self-analysis, (scientific) discourse today has
8
Brtting is not alone in this assessment. Grimm, who provides a concise his tory of French
academic literary criticism, also finds: "Die fr[ anzsische] univ[ ersitre] Lit[eratur]wiss[ enschaft] hat eine [ ... ] Eigengesetzlichkeit des geisteswiss[enschaftlichen] Gegenstandes nie reflektiert [ ... ]; sie sieht ihre Aufgabe allein in der Suche nach dem einen entstehungs geschichtlich
bedingten Sinn des lit[erarischen] Gegenstandes [French academic literary scholarship never
contemplated the unique quality of objects of inquiry in the humanities; its aim is solely the
search for the one historically determined meaning of the literary object]." (Grimm 1987, 134;
my translation) Even Hempfer, who severely criticizes Tel-Quelian theories, concedes that
many of the opposition al 'textual' notions become understandable in view of this tradition al
French critical practice (1976, 51).
Harland perceptively sketches Kristeva's and Barthes's position and its analogy with Derrida's
philosophy of language (Harland 1987,167-169); as Derrida is less concerned with literature, he
will play only a marginal role here. An extended critical discussion of Derrida can be found in
Seung (1982).
. Bypassing Intertextuality
39
It seems that in these remarks the political (Maoist) concept of 'permanent revolution' is transposed onto the field of intellectual inquiry.
Kristeva also borrows from the explanatory model of Freudian psychoanalysis. In contrast to former applications of psychoanalytical thought in literary
studies Kristeva stresses the procedural character of the psychoanalytical session
over against the 'scientific' taxonomy of the mind which this discipline also
promises. Tying in with her observations on Marx's concept of 'production'
(81 f.) are her reflections on the Freudian 'dream work'. She deliberately opposes the latter to economic production, which she sees characterized by the
valorization of the finished work (object) and its exchange value. The dream
work, on the other hand, is an (utopian) example of a kind of work which is all
play on the surface and yet performs vital functions for the individua1. 10 All in
all, Kristeva advocates the application of an antagonistic (hence Marxist, as com10
For Marx's early concept of 'work', on which Kristeva's notions are most likely based, cf. Rder
(1989).
40
Bypassing Intertextuality
H.-P. Mai
pared to Hegelian) dialectics ll in a new discipline, a semiotics of cultural meaning. The underlying notion of 'culture' is a far cry from the reconciliatory concept to which tradition al hermeneutics adheres. In this, Kristeva apparently belongs to a contemporary group of "Western and Soviet semioticians [who] tend
to interpret culture as a minimal condition for social existence, and to regard it as
the domain of social conflicts and struggle for the collective memory" (Rewar
1976, 375). Kristeva closes her article with a few thoughts on the subject of
literature. Literature is not accorded a privileged place in her cultural semiotics:
"[T]he new semiotic models then turn to the social text, to those social practices
of which 'literature' is only one unvalorized variant, in order to conceive of them
as so many ongoing transformations and/or productions" (87).
What does intertextuality have to do with all this? Kristeva's concept of it is
very much analogous to the model of intellectual inquiry just outlined and
fueled by the same impulses. Writing about intertextuality, her general semiotic
inquiry is only displaced onto the field of literature as cultural discourse. This
transposition takes place in the essay "The Bounded Text" of 1969 (Kristeva
1980 a).12 Here the single text is characterized as a 'productivity' analogous to
the dream work outlined in the former essay. Kristeva defines the text as
a trans-linguistic apparatus that redistributes the order of language by relating communicative
speech, which aims to inform directly, to different kinds of anterior or synchronie utterances.
The text is therefore a productivity, and this me ans : first, that its relationship to the language in
which it is situated is redistributive (destructive-constructive) [ ...]; and second, that it is a permutation of texts, an intertextuality: in the space of a given text, several utterances, taken from
other texts, intersect and neutralize one another. (36)
The greatest congruence of Kristeva and Barthes 15 concerning intertextual matters can be found in Barthes's article "Theory of the Text" of 1973. Like
Kristeva, he holds that the limitations of the linguistic-structuralist approach
\3
14
15
11
12
On the fundamental difference between Hegelian and Marxian dialectics cf. Seung (1982,
104-112).
Another version of this article has been published as "Problemes de la structuration du texte". It
is less strictly language-oriented and hence displays its proximity to Kristeva's criticism of scientific positivism more overtly.
41
Feral refers to Kristeva's changing methodologie al preoccupations (1980, 277, 279); he notes,
disapprovingly, "the temptation of science" "to which Kristevian semiotics succombed[sic} in its
early stages" (275); Barthes, approvingly, writes that Kristeva points out "the terminological
slippage of so-called scientific definitions" (1986, 169). Kristeva's terminological inconsistencies
are discussed by Adriaens (1981, 193-195). For a positive evaluation of the 'parasitic' nature of
such a deconstructive enterprise cf. DImer (1983, 93, 99-101).
An example of how Kristeva practices this (subversive, or careless, depending on one's view)
appropriation herself can be found in comparing "The Bounded Text" with another version of
the same article and relating the findings to her Revolution du langage poetique. In "Problemes
de la structuration du texte" she devotes a considerable amount of space to developing her notions of the geno- and the pheno-text in analogy to Chomsky's linguistic model of deep structure
and surface structure (Kristeva 1968, 300-304, 309-312); she even calls her method 'transformational analysis'. In "The Bounded Text" she does not borrow from Chomsky altogether. In La
Revolution she revives her concept 6f geno- and pheno-text, but now it has thoroughly
psychoanalytic underpinnings.
Barthes is one of the most popular and controversial French literary theorists. For further information.see the bibliography by Freedman & Taylor (1983). Let me mention here only Leitch's
thorough presentation of Barthes in the context of intertextuality (Leitch 1983, 102-115) and
Ray's lucid mapping of Barthes's theoretical progress (Ray 1984). - Barthes expressed his admiration for Kristeva, who once had been his pupil, most explicitly in his review of Semeiotike
(Barthes 1986).
42
H.-P. Mai
Still, such a 'text~al' approach is not to be equated with mere subjective caprice.
Rather, it is to be conceived o,f as a paradoxical undertaking (45), "a critical
science [ ... ] which [permanfntly] calls into question its own discourse" (43);
"directly critical of any metalanguage" (35), textual analysis is interested in "a
dialectic, not [... ] classificatron" (36). This comes ab out, as Barthes notes elsewhere, because "from the moment that a piece of research concerns the text [ ... ]
the research itself becomes text, production: to it, any 'result' is literally
im-pertinent" (Barthes 1977 b, 198). It is here that Barthes most clearly parts
with all structurally oriented and even with many hermeneutically inclined colleagues because he is claiming that, with regard to the 'text', artistic and critical
activity are indistinguishable: "Not only does the theory of the text extend to
infinity the freedoms of reading [...], but it also insists strongly on the (productive) equivalence of writing and reading" (Barthes 1981,42). On the other hand,
Barthes does point out that his notion of a 'textual science' would not invalidate
tradition al approaches to literary phenomena; it would only put them into a new
perspective - and would preclude any facile self-aggrandizement: "This
methodological principle does not necessarily oblige us to reject the results of
the canonical sciences of the work (his tory , sociology, etc.), but it leads us to use
them partially, freely, and above all relatively" (43).
Yet on the down side of Barthes's notions of textuality there stilliurks a
dangerous solipsism. After all, textual
Bypassing Intertextuality
43
[p ]roductivity is triggered off [ ...] either (in the case of the author) by ceaselessly producing
'word-plays', or (in the case of the reader) by inventing ludic meanings, even if the author of the
text had not foreseen them, and even if it was historically impossible for hirn to foresee them
[.. .J. (37)
Consequently, every textualist would have to content hirns elf with inventing
highly eclectic semantic games, not together with, but parallel to his textual copractitioner( s) - which means that their communicative exchange would consist
in interminable charades never to terminate in any consensual agreement as to its
trans-subjective validity. Against this bleak vision intertextuality seems to reintroduce the sociable aspect of (critical) communication: "Epistemologically,
the concept of intertext is what brings to the theory of the text the volume of
sociality" (39). Barthes upholds that
in relation to the formalist sciences (dassicallogic, semiology, aesthetics) [textual analysis] reintroduces into its field his tory, society (in the form of the intertext), and the subject (but it is a
doyen subject, ceaselessly displaced - and undone - by the presence-absence of his une onscious). (45)
This assertion of history, society, and the (split) subject seems to contradict
many notions held ab out the poststructuralist enterprise in general, and even
some of Barthes's own words in his very similar essay "From Work to Text" of
1971 (Barthes 1977 a). Here, the historical dim~nsion is being suspended, in the
end, in favour of an utopian egalitarian textual vision:
[B]efore History (supposing the latter does not opt for barbarism), the Text achieves, if not the
transparence of social relations, that at least of language relations: the Text is that space where no
language has a hold over any other, where languages circulate [ ... J. (164)16
But Barthes knows full weIl that this is only avision. As for 'textual' practice, he
does not preach a complacent ahistoricism, an irresponsible free-for-all play for reasons of political expediency, as he makes clear (Barthes 1977 b, 207 f.). Yet
politically his attitude is not an activist one (for a criticism of Barthes's 'aestheticism' cf. Huyssen 1988,210-213). One should not overlook that Barthes, for all
his attacks on 'bourgeois culture', has always argued primarily as a literary critic. 17
16 An important difference in two widespread translations of Barthes's essay should be noted here.
Stephen Heath translates: "the Text participates in its own way in a social utopia" (Barthes
1977 a, 164). In Textual Strategies the line reads: "the Text participates in a social utopia of its
own" (Barthes 1979, 80). The latter example seems to stress the self-contained character of a
'textual domain', whereas the first translation points out the primarily social nature of the utopia
mentioned of which the text is only one aspect. Actually, Heath's rendering is much doser to the
original which reads: "[LJe Texte participe asa maniere d'une utopie sociale" (Barthes 1971,232).
17 What makes Barthes's argumentative procedure (as to intertextuality amongst other things)
doubtful on a more strictly epistemologicallevel is his privileging language as a me ans of interpretation of all signifying systems (Barthes 1981,42) which leads hirn (and others) to see the
whole world as just one vast text; Seung (1982, 126) has raised a pertinent methodological critique in this respect.
44
Bypassing Intertextuality
H.-P. Mai
5. Applied Intertextuality
There are critics with split affinities: they feel tempted by certain poststructuralist notions but cannot accept the unlimited creation of intertextual relationships
through the reader nor do they subscribe to a sociologically oriented historical
intertextual practice as exemplified by Kristeva's Le texte du roman because
they 'put the literary text first'. The tendency to interpret intertextuality in such
a more conservative, main1y ,intra-literary fashion seems to have been strongly
influenced by an 1976 article by L. Jenny. His mapping of the intertextual enterprise aims at a harmonious 'fusion of the irreconcilable diversity stressed by
theorists such as Kristeva. Jenny starts out with the assumption that intertextuality is a precondition of any cultural semiotics, and he affirms that the "intertextu al attitude is [ ... J a critical attitude" Oenny 1982, 37). But soon enough he
expresses the opinion that the "problem of intertextuality is to bind together
several texts in one without their destroying each other and without the intertext
[ ... J being torn apart as a structured whole" (45). (This statement contrasts
sharply with Kristeva's assertion that in the case of intertextuality "several utterances, taken from other texts, intersect and neutralize one another" [Kristeva
1980 a, 36; my emphasis J.) Jenny' s main intc!-est is: "[HJow does a text assimilate
preexisting utterances?" (50). This assimilation is to take place, preferably, as
"[iJntertextual harmonization" (52). Jenny likes to think of intertextuality in
terms of an accumulation of artistic wealth: "Intertextuality speaks a language
whose vocabulary is the sum of all existing texts. [ ... J This confers on the intertext an exceptional richness and density" (45). To such an ontological notion the
earlier intertextualists, Kristeva and Barthes, were vehemently opposed. On the
other hand, Jenny's illusions of grandeur 'harmonize' with traditionally
45
19
20
Jenny displays an affinity with traditional romantic notions of text as organic entity when he
worries metaphorically ab out "[i]ntertextual transplanting [which] creat[es] survival problems
for the receiving organism" (50).
The cryptic explanation of 'intertextuality' und er the heading of "Rhetoric" by Dupriez (1986,
829 f.) can be regarded a result of such a suggestion.
An interesting, though no less disappointing, comparison is provided by Horan's article on the
same topic. His attempt "to add to an appreciation of the biographical and psychologie al dimen-
r
46
case serves to justify a scholarly proceeding via associations. But does interpretative ingenuity evolve into a scholarly sound procedure by being backed by
a fashionable jargon? All in all, if this is intertextual scholarship then we have not
advanced very far since the times an artide could address the question: "George
Peele andA Farewell to Arms: A Thematic Tie?" (Mazzaro 1960).
Equally doubtful as to its 'intertextual' character, but for somewhat different
reasons, is arecent interpretation of Proust's Recherche by M. Riffaterre (1986),
who normally carries on the business of dose reading in the name of intertextuality (cf. Morgan 1985,24-28).21 In this particular essay he offers a most interesting psychoanalytically inspired account of some basic features of the novel. Yet
he takes pains to distinguish his approach from a psychoanalytical one that (according to an outdated notion) supposedly has nothing better to do than point
out sexual symbols and the like. But why doak an interpretation which dearly
follows psychoanalytical insights with the label 'intertextual'?
What then is 'applied intertextual criticism'? Is the inter text just a means of
critical montage as in Hassan (1984)? Or does intertextual practice consist in an
exegesis of the arch-intertextualists, such as in Mortimer's (1989) extended annotations to Barthes's The Pleasure of the Text? Conde & Jacobi (1986) use the
label for computerized explorations of word fields. Arecent contribution to
studies in language acquisition employs the term 'intertextuality' to describ~ a
feature of children's narrative practices (Wolf & Hicks 1989).
This is not the place to discuss such divergent individual examples of 'applied
intertextuality' extensively. I leave it to anyone interested in practical aspects of
the idea to make his or her own sense. Yet one thing is obvious: 'practical intertextuality' appears to be an infiuitely pliable concept,especially when it comes
to incorporating it into one'~ own critical vocabulary. Thus, it is all too easily
divested of any heuristic value. And there's absolutely no legal redress! Faced
with the edecticism with which the term 'intertextuality' is currently applied,
one would have to agree with Bennett (1987), who views 'intertextuality' - even
in the Tel Quelian version - as expressive of a text fetishism (249 f.), in a Marxist
sense of the word, signalling nothing more than a "consumer revolution in literary theory" (249).
21
Bypassing Intertextuality
H.-P. Mai
sions of [Orwell's] involvement in the writing of the novel" (1987,54) through recourse to an
Orwellian essay on school experiences is almost indistinguishable from tradition al biographical
criticism.
For further criticisms of the Riffaterrean version of intertextuality (Riffaterre 1978), cf. Freadman (1983); Frow (1986,151-155); de Man (1986). A 'practical' intertextual controversy can be
witnessed in the competing interpretations of Flaubert's Madame Bovary by Riffaterre (1981)
and Rothfield (1985).
47
48
H.-P. Mai
Yet what Tel Quel had in common with traditional academic criticism was the
high regard in which art was principally held. In this, the two groups' relationship was analogous to a typical configuration of modernist and avantgarde art:
Where the modernists sought to affirm the relative autonomy of the 'cultural' sphere - asserting
its tradition al constitutive values (of creativity, imagination, individuality, autonomy, etc.)
against the values of the market-place - the avant-garde sought to undermine theideology of
aesthetic autonomy, to collapse the cultural back into the socio-economic, in order to translate
such values into social praxis. (Bennett 1987, 247)
Some Tel Quelians inflated the importance of the 'art text' even beyond
modernist notions of it, as it seemed to be not only a means to escape the alienated existence enforced by existing social conditions but an agent of actual social
change. The 'transcendent', 'liberating', 'ennobling' function of art was not actually questioned but rather reaffirmed, despite all radicalist rhetoric. (The 'end
of art' was being proclaimed by different quarters [cf. e.g. Hohendahl 1980].)
Yet the poststructural critic/artist had to realize the revolutionary potential of
art in a way radically different from established procedures. To be subversive,
the new 'textual practice' first of all had to undermine the idea of a unified,
accumulative sense. It, therefore, had to point out, retrospectively, contradictions and fissures within the seeming unity (and occasional harmony) of traditional art. Moreover, these critics advocated deli berate (post-)modernist disruptions of meaning in contemporary and future art practice, the refusal to make
(fixed) sense. In the last resort a new semantic fluidity was favoured, which
abolished all differences between (privileged) semantic producers and (receptive) consumers/critics.
These poststructural notions l;tave been called into question with good, but all
too often only antagonistically self-assertive, arguments (cf. e.g. Hempfer 1976).
Yet is 'textual practice' of the poststructuralistldeconstructive kind the only
consequence that can be elaborated from Kristeva's original concept of an alternative hermeneutics?
There are, after all, some scholars who acknowledge the poststructuralist perplexities without succumbing to mere deconstructive theorizing. In this regard,
J. L. Lemke (1983; 1985) is to be mentioned, an author who tries to elaborate an
intertextual analytical concept with the help of the linguistic approach suggested
by M. A. K. Halliday. T. Threadgold (1987; 1988) conducts his inquiries on a
similar plane. The problem with these attempts is that any thorough examiHation of a sufficiently complex text along their lines apparently makes for a critical
vocabulary and diagrams of increasing incomprehensibility (e.g. Lemke 1983;
Threadgold 1988). But these contributions still have to be assessed by other
professed intertextualists. There are also some literary scholars (W. Rewar
[1989]; W.R. Paulson [1988]; G.L. Stonum [1977; 1989]) who res ort to cybernetic theory to reformulate the original Kristeyian concept of an alternative,
self-critical hermeneutics of an intertextual nature. This is not the place to discuss their contributions at length; suffice it to say their theoretical suggestions
may be able to provide aframework for intertextual studies of an advanced kind.
Bypassing Intertextuality
49
A means to alleviate some of the inevitable frustrations arising from contemporary critical intertextual practice (of the theoretical and the applied kind)
could be the new hypertext computer technology - if, that is, the theoretical and
methodological complexities of the subject matter under discussion are heeded.
This technology provides the means to store and interrelate all kinds of information and interpretations and make them almost instantly accessible, thus enabling the creation of intertextual networks of a new kind. 22
7. Hypertext
22
23
Some authors already expressly try to make use of the term 'intertextual' in conjunction with
computer~supported literary studies (e.g. Corns 1986; Paulson 1989, 295).
Incidentally, this "hypertext" has nothing whatsoever to do with Genette's (1982) use of the
term.
50
Bypassing Intertextuality
H.-P. Mai
view is again a political one: who provides, under which conditions, which kind
of access to whom. Current database management is conspicuously concerned
with questions as to wh ich 'privileges' are accorded to which users. Only an
accomplished hacker would be 'intertextually free' (in a Barthesian sense) to
follow up any kind of textual connection - but, at the same time, subject to legal
restrictions wh ich try to secure the private property of information. So it will
not happen automatically that "an electronic text deconstructs itself - with no
help from the theorists" (Bolter 1989, 138). The reader as critically constructive
agency will not become ~uperfluous. Yet hypertext technology's non-linear
character helps to counter any kind of dogmatism. And the electronic texture
may provide us indeed with a flexibility we have never had before because
literary studies is described by Landow [1989].) Furthermore, a hypertext system can wrk as a stand-alone solution but it also allows teamwork (Halasz
1988,848-850; Irish & Trigg 1989; Trigg & Suchman 1989) and basically even
encourages it.
Although there are still many conceptual perplexities (Halasz 1988; Raymond
& Tompa 1988; Byles 1988) and there will always be relative technical restrictions for individuals, the technical concept as such is generally acclaimed. And
even if grand visions of a world-wide scholarly on-line cooperation will not
come true overnight, the acceptance of such a relatively sophisticated and commercially wide-spread hypertext system as Apple's HyperCard allows easy data
exchange for those who are interested in it. In any case, hypertext systems certainly could be a viable technical solution for those intertextualists interested in
pointing out interconnections in large archives of diverse kin~s o.f text (ve.rbal,
visual, and aural) as it allows the construction of comprehenslve mformatlOnal
networks.
Heim (1987) foresees that in such an environment
[t]he author may try to dominate us eompletely by employing every typographie (and linguistie)
deviee to show what is important in his text: we as readers are not in any ease obliged to believe
hirn. Organization is interpretation, and we may deeide that his ideas lend themselves to another
organization altogether. (Bolter 1989,137)
[e]ross referenees [ ... ] beeome identieal with textuality, not just proximate and mutually ~n
flueneing texts but texts eoresident and in the same interaetive element and eapable of bemg
direetly juxtaposed or superimposed. [ ... ] The sense of a sequentialliterature of distinet, physically separate texts is supplanted by a eontinuous textuality. (162)
But Heim also worries about the consequences. His critique of such a computerized 'intertextuality' (211-213) covers exactly those sensitive issues which
played an important role in the initial formulation of the intertextual ~oncept
through Kristeva and in later poststructural approaches: truth/authonty/personal vision/stability/composure vs. curiosity/mental excitement/unlimited
combinatory possibilities/a creative superabundance with schizoid undertones.
The computer can bring aboqt only an apparent resolution of these perplexities:
51
[In] the eleetrie element [ ...] the logie of manipulative power reigns supreme.1t beeomes possible
to treat the entire verbal life of the human raee as one eontinuous, anonymous eode without
essential referenee to human presenee behind it, wh ich neither feels it must answer to anyone nor
necessarily awaits an answer from anyone. (213; myemphasis)
8. Summary
In the foregoing discussion it was argued that two contradictory definitions of
intertextuality are prevalent and at war with each other. A poststructural approach uses the concept as aspringboard for associative speculations ab out
semiotic and cultural matters in general. On the other hand, traditionalliterary
studies have seized upon the term to integrate their investigative interests in
structures and interrelations of literary texts under a comprehensive, and fashionably sounding, catch-all term. These divergent interpretative interests cannot
be reconciled theoretically. At its least presumptuous, the word 'intertextuality'
merely indicates that one text refers to or is present in another one. Such a
linguistic short cut is convenient but tends to become predominantly ornamental- and hence is not particularly conducive to a better understanding.
Yet with all the various forms of appropriation of the term, one important
initial (Kristevian) insight must not be frgotten: that literature is (also) medi-
r
52
Bypassing Intertextuality
H.-P. Mai
ated through extra-literary discourses - which constitute the actual challenge for
intertextual studies of a distinct kind. Any merely intra-literary, intra-linguistic
taxonomie attempt will serve mainly archival purposes , and even these in a
slightly antiquated fashion.
If one desires a contemporary practical elaboration of the concept one should
perhaps devote one's attention to hypertext computer systems. But most 'practical' literary scholars may not be content to do this because it presupposes a
willingness to part, to an extent, with the traditional fetish 'literature' and to
subsume literary texts, at least for a time, under the much less intriguing heading
of information.
Bibliography
Adriaens, Mark
1981
"Ideology and Literary Production: Kristeva's Poetics." In Peter V. Zima, ed. Semiotics and Dialectics: I deology and the Text. Amsterdam: J ohn Benjamins, 179-220.
Altman, Charles F.
1981
"Intratextual Rewriting: Textuality as Language Formation." In Wendy Stein er, ed.
The Sign in Music and Literature. Austin: University of Texas Press, 39-51.
Angenot, Marc
1983
"Intertextualite, interdiscursivite, discours social." Texte 2, 101-112.
Arrive, Michel
1973
"Pour une theorie des textes poly-isotopiques." Langages 31,53-63.
Barthes, Roland
1971
"De l'oeuvre au texte." Revue d'Esthhique 24, 225-232.
1977 a
"From Work to Text." Image - Music - Text. Ed. Stephen Heath. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 142-148.
1977 b
"Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers." Image - Music- Text. Ed. Stephen Heath. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 190-215 (orig. 1971).
"From Work to Text." In Josue V. Harari, ed. Textual Strategies: Perspectives in
1979
Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 73-81.
1981
"Theory of the Text." In Robert Young, ed. Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist
Reader. Boston/London/Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 31-47 (orig. 1973).
1986
"Kristeva's Semeiotike." The Rustle of Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 168-171
(orig. 1970).
Beaugrande, Robert de & Wolfgang Dressler
1981
Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Bennett, David
1987
"Wrapping Up Postmodernism: The Subject of Consumption Versus the Subject of
Cognition." TextualPractice 1,243-261.
Bolter, J ay David
1989
"Beyond Word Processing: The Computer as a N ew Writing Space." Language &
Communication 9,129-142.
Bove, Carol Mastrangelo
1983
"The Text as Dialogue in Bakhtin and Kristeva." University of Ottawa Quarterly 53,
117-124.
Bowie, Malcolm
1979
"J acques Lacan." In J ohn Sturrock, ed. Structuralism and Since: From Levi-Strauss to
Derrida. Oxford: Oxford UP, 116-153.
Brandt, Joan
1987
53
"The Systematics of a Non-System: Julia Kristeva's Revisionary Semioti~s." AmericanJournal ofSemiotics 5,133-150.
Broich, Ulrich & Manfred Pfister, eds.
1985
Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen: M. Niemeyer.
Broich, Ulrich
1985
"Zur Einzeltextreferenz. " In Broich & Pfister, eds., 48-52.
Bruce, Don
1983
"Bibliographie annotee: Ecrits sur l'intertextualite." Texte 2, 217-258.
Brtting, Richard
1976
"ecriture" und "texte": Die franzsische Literaturtheorie "nach dem Strukturalismus": Kritik traditioneller Positionen und Neuanstze. Bonn: Bouvier.
Byles, Torrey
1988
"A Context for Hypertext : Some Suggested Elements of Style." Wilson Library Bulletin 63 (Nov), 60-62.
Carroll, David
1983
"The Alterity of Discourse: Form, History, and the Question of the Political in
M. M. Bakhtin." Diacritics 13,65-83.
Carron, J ean-Claude
1988
"Imitation and Intertextuality in the Renaissance." New Literary History 19,
565-579.
Conde, Claude & DanielJacobi
1986
"L'indexation lexicale des contextes des termes pivots dans un corpus intertextuel de
vulgarisation scientifique." In Etienne Brunet, ed. Mhhodes quantitatives et informatiques dans Ntude des textes: Colloque International CNRS, Universite de Nice,
5-8juin 1985 en hommage aCharies Muller. Geneve/Paris: Slatkine-Champion,
207-219.
Conklin, J eH
198 7
"Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey." IEEE Computer 20 (Sept), 17-41.
Corns, Thomas N.
1986
"Literary Theory and Computer-based Criticism: Current Problems and Future
Prospects." In Etienne Brunet, ed. Mhodes quantitatives et informatiques dans
Ntude des textes: Colloque International CNRS. Universite de Nice, 5-8 juin 1985
en hommage a Charles Muller. Geneve/Paris: Slatkine-Champion, 221-227.
Coward, Rosalind & J ohn Ellis
1977
Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject. London/Henley/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dllenbach, Lucien
1976
"Intertexte et autotexte. " Pohique 7/27, 282-296.
Davidson, Michael
1983
"Discourse in Poetry: Bakhtin and Extensions of the Dialogical." In Michael Palmer,
ed. Code of Signals: Recent W,itings in Poetics. Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic
Books, 143-150.
deMan, Paul
1986
"Hypogram and Inscription." The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 27-53 (orig. 1981).
Dupriez, Bernard
1986
"The Semiotics of Rhetoric: Definition." In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. Encyclopedic
Dictionary ofSemiotics. 2 vols. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter,
819-831.
Ette, Ottmar .
1985
"Intertextualitt: Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmerkungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift fr Literaturgeschichte 9, 497-522.
r
54
Feral, J.
1980
H.-P. Mai
"Kristevian Semiotics: Towards a Semanalysis. " In R. W. Bailey et al., eds. The Sign:
Semiotics Around the World. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan Slavic Publications, rev.
ed., 271-279.
Fiderio, J anet
1988
"A Grand Vision: Hypertext Mimics the Brain's Ability to Access Information
Quickly and Intuitively by Reference." Byte (Oct), 237-244.
Franklin, Carl
1989
"Hypertext Defined and Applied." Online 13 (May), 37-49.
Freadman, Anne
1983
"Riffaterra Cognita: A Late Contribution to the Formalism Debate." SubStance no.
42,31-45.
Freedman, Sanford & Carole Taylor
1983
Roland Barthes: A BibliographicalReader's Guide. NewYork: Garland.
Frow,John
1986
Marxism and Literary History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fger, Wilhelm
1989
"Intertextualia Orwelliana: Untersuchungen zur Theorie und Praxis der Markierung
von Intertextualitt." Poetica 21,179-200.
Galan, F. W.
Historic Structures: The Prague School Project, 1928-1946. London/Sydney: Croom
1985
Helm.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre. Paris: Seuil.
Grimm, Jrgen
1987
"Methoden der franzsischen Literaturwissenschaft." In Jrgen Grimm et al. Einfhrung in die franzsische Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 3rd rev.
ed., 101-171.
Grivel, Charles
1975
"Quant al'intertexte: Plan d'un livre ou possible ou futur." Melanges de linguistique
et de litterature offerts a'Lein Geschiere par ses amis, collegues et eleves. Amsterdam:
Editions Rodopi, 153-180.
Grbel, Rainer
1983
"Die Geburt des Textes aus dem Tode der Texte: Strukturen und Funktionen der
Intertextualitt in Dostoevkijs Roman 'Die Brder Karamazov' im Lichte seines
Mottos." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 205-271.
Gnther,H.
1981
"Michail Bachtins Konzeption als Alternative zum Sozialistischen Realismus." In
Peter V. Zima, ed. Semiotics and Dialectics: I deology and the Text. Amsterdam: J ohn
Benjamins, 137-177.
Halasz, Frank G.
1988
"Refleetions on NoteCards: Seven Issues for the Next Generation of Hypermedia
Systems." Communications of the ACM 31,836-852.
Harland, Richard
1987
Superstructuralism: The Philosophy of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. New
York/London: Methuen.
Hartman, Geoffrey
1976
"Literary Criticism and Its Discontents." Criticallnquiry 3, 203-220.
Harty,E.R.
"Text, Context, Intertext." Journal of Literary Studies 1,1-13.
1985
Hassan, Ihab
"The Re-Vision of Literature: Rhetoric, Imagination, Vision." In Manfred Ptz &
1984
Peter Freese, eds. Postmodernism in American Literature: A Critical Anthology.
Darmstadt: Thesen, 95-117 (orig. 1980).
Bypassing Intertextuality
55
Hauff, Jrgen
1985
"Hermeneutik." In Jrgen Hauff et al. Methodendiskussion: Arbeitsbuch zur Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 2: Hermeneutik - Marxismus. Knigstein/Ts.: Athenum, 5th
ed., 1-45 (orig. 1971).
Heim, Michiel
1987
Electric Language: A Philosophical Study ofWord Processing. New Haven/London:
Yale UP.
Hempfer, Klaus W.
1976
Poststrukturale Texttheorie und narrative Praxis: Tel Quel und die Konstitution eines Nouveau Nouveau Roman. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe
1980
"Politisierung der Kunsttheorie: Zur sthetischen Diskussion nach 1965." In P. M.
Ltzeler & E. Schwarz, eds. Deutsche Literatur in der BRD seit 1965. Knigstein/
Ts.: Athenum, 282-299.
Horan, Chris
1987
"An Inter-Textual Approach to the Teaching of George OrwelI's Nineteen EightyFour. CRUX: AJournal on the Teaching of English 21 (Feb), 47-54.
Huyssen, Andreas
1988
"Mapping the Postmodern." After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture,
Postmodernism. London: Macmillan, 178-221.
Irish, Peggy M. & Randall H. Trigg
1989
"Supporting Collaboration in Hypermedia: Issues and Experiences." Journal of the
American Society for Information Science 40, 192-199.
J ameson, Fredric
1985
"Periodizing the 60s." In Sohnya Sayres et al., eds. The 60s Without Apology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2nd ed., 178-209.
J ardine, Alice
1986
"Opaque Texts and Transparent Contexts: The Political Difference of Julia
Kristeva." In N ancy K. MilIer, ed. The Poetics of Gender. N ew York: Columbia UP,
96-116.
J enny, Laurent
1982
"The Strategy of Form." In Tzvetan Todorov, ed. French Literary Theory Today: A
Reader. Cambridge: Cambridge UP/Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de
I'Homme, 34-63 (orig. 1976).
Kao, Shuhsi
1981
"Paradise Lost? An Interview with Philippe SolIers." SubStance no. 30, 31-50.
Kristeva, J ulia
1968
"Problemes de la structuration du texte." In Tel Quel, ed. Theorie d'ensemble. Paris:
Seuil,298-317.
1970
Le texte du roman: Approche semiologique d'une structure discursive transformationelle. The Hague: Mouton.
1975
"The System and the Speaking Subject." In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. The Tell-Tale
Sign: A Survey ofSemiotics. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 47-55 (orig. 1973).
1980a
"The Bounded Text." Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and
Art. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Oxford: B. BlackwelI, 36-63 (orig. 1968).
1980b
"From One Ideniity to an Other." Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to
Literature and Art. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Oxford: B. BlackwelI, 124-147 (orig.
1975).
1986a
"Semiotics: A Critical Science and/or a Critique of Science." The Kristeva Reader.
Ed. TorilMoi. Oxford: B. BlackwelI, 75-88 (orig. 1968).
1986 b
"Word, Dialogue and Novel." The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: B.
BlackwelI, 34-61 (orig. 1966).
1986c
"Revolution in Poetic Language." The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford:
B. BlackwelI, 89-136 (orig. 1974).
56
H.-P. Mai
LaCapra, Dominick
1983
"Bakhtin, Marxism, and the Carnivalesque." Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts,
Contexts, Language. Ithaca/London: Cornell UP, 291-324.
Lachmann, Renate, ed.
1982
Dialogizitt. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Lachmann, Renate
1984
"Ebenen des Intertextualittsbegriffs." In Stierle & Warning, eds., 133-138.
Landow, George P.
1989
"Hypertext in Literary Education, Criticism, and Scholarship." Computers & the
H umanities 23, 173 -198.
Lehmann, Jrgen
1977
"Ambivalenz und Dialogizitt: Zur Theorie der Rede bei Michail Bachtin. " In Friedrich A. Kittler & Horst Turk, eds. Urszenen: Literaturwissenschaft als Diskursanalyse und Diskurskritik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 355-380.
Leitch, Vincent B.
1983
Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction. New York: Columbia UP.
Lemke, J ay L.
"Thematic Analysis: Systems, Structures, and Strategies." Recherches Semiotiquesl
1983
Semiotic Inquiry 3/2,159-187.
"Ideology, Intertextuality, and the Notion ofRegister." In James D. Benson & Wil1985
liam S. Greaves, eds. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse: Selected Theoretical Papers
from the 9th International Systemic Workshop [Toronto, 1982]. Norwood, N.].:
Ablex Publishing, 275-294.
Lewis, Philip E.
1974
"Revolutionary Semiotics." Diacritics 4, 28-32.
Lindner, Monika
1985
"Integrationsformen der Intertextualitt." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 116-135.
Mailloux, Steven
1982
Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study ofAmerican Fiction. Ithaca/London: Cornell up.
Martens, Gunter
1989
"Was ist ein Text? Anstze zur Bestimmung eines Leitbegriffs der Textphilologie."
Poetica 21,1-25.
Mazzaro, J erome L.
1960
"George Peele andA Farewell toArms: A Thematic Tie?" Modern Language Notes
75,118-119.
Moi, Toril
"Marginality and Subversion: Julia Kristeva." SexuallTextual Politics: Feminist
1985
Literary Theory. London/New York: Methuen, 150-173.
"Introduction." In Julia Kristeva. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford:
1986
Basil Blackwell, 1-22.
Morgan, Thais E.
1985
"ls There an Intertext in This Text?: Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to
Intertextuality." AmericanJournal ofSemiotics 3/4,1-40.
Mortimer, Armine Kotin
1989
The Gentlest Law: Roland Barthes's "The Pleasure of the Text". New YorkiBernl
FrankfurtiParis : P. Lang.
Nth, Winfried
1985
"Textsemiotik." Handbuch der Semiotik. Stuttgart: Metzler, 455-460.
Nye,Andrea
1987
"Woman Clothed with the Sun: Julia Kristeva and the Escape from/to Language."
Signs 12, 664-686.
. Bypassing Intertextuality
57
Paulson, William R.
1988
The Noise of Culture: Literary Texts in a World of Information. Ithaca/London:
Cotnell UP.
1989
"Computers, Minds, and Texts: Preliminary Reflections." New Literary History 20,
291-303.
Pechey, Graham
1982
"Bakhtin, Marxism, and Post-Structuralism." In The Politics ofTheory: Proceedings
of the Essex Conference on the Sociology of Literature, July 1982. Colchester: University of Essex, 234-247.
Pfister, Manfred
1985 a
"Konzepte der Intertextualitt." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 1-30.
1985 b
"Zur Systemreferenz. " In Broich & Pfister, eds., 52-58.
Ping Hui, Liao
1983/84
"Intersection and Juxtaposition of Wor(l)ds." Tamkang Review 14, 395-411.
Plett, Heinrich F.
1985
"Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In Broich & Pfister, eds.,
78-98.
Popovic, Anton
1980
"Inter-Semiotic-Inter-Literary Translation." In Bela Kpeczi et al., eds. Proceedings
of the 8th Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association. Vol. 2.
Stuttgart: Kunst & Wissen-Erich Bieber, 763-765.
Pugliese, Abel Orlando
1988
"Von der Hermeneutik zur Text-, Kontext- und Intertextanalyse: Eine Reflexion
ber literaturwissenschaftliche Methodologie und Methodik." In Ilse NoltingHauff & Joachim Schulze, eds. Das fremde Wort: Studien zur Interdependenz von
Texten: Festschrift fr Kar! Maurer zum 60. Geburtstag. Amsterdam: B. R. Grner,
17-50.
Ray, William
1984
"Roland Barthes: Subverting History 1 Suspending the Self." Literary Meaning:
From Phenomenology to Deconstruction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 170-185.
Raymond, Darrell R. & Frank W. Tompa
1988
"Hypertext and the Oxford English Dictionary." Communications of the ACM 31,
871-879.
Rewar, Walter
1976
"Notes for a Typology of Culture." Semiotica 18, 361-377.
1989
"On Hierarchy, Extension, and Boundary in the Cybernetic Modeling of the Literary Text." Semiotica 75, 229-255.
Ricoeur, Paul
1981 a
"What Is a Text? Explanation and Understanding." Hermeneutics and the Human
Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. Ed. & tr. John B. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1 Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de
I'Homme, 145-164 (orig. 1970).
1981 b
"Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology." Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. Ed. & tr.John B. Thompson.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1 Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de I'Homme,
63-100 (orig. 1973).
Riffaterre, Michael
1978
Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington/London: Indiana UP.
1981
"Flaubert's Presuppositions." Diacritics 11,2-11.
1986
"The Intertextual Unconscious." Critical Inquiry 13,371-385.
Rder, Petra
1989
. "Po eta Faber: Der frhromantische poiesis-Gedanke und die Idee der cfreien bewuten Ttigkeit' bei Karl Marx." Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft & Geistesgeschichte 63,521-546.
58
H.-P. Mai
Rommetveit, Ragnar
1988
"On Literacy and the Myth of Literal Meaning." In Roger Slj, ed. The Written
World: Studies in Literate Thought and Action. Berlin: Springer, 13-40.
Rothfield, Lawrence
1985
"From Semiotic to Discursive Intertextuality: The Case of Madame Bovary." Novel
19,57-81.
Ruprecht, Hans-George
1983
"Intertextualite." Texte 2, 13-22.
Rusinko, Elaine
1979
"Intertextuality: The Soviet Approach to Subtext." Dispositio 4, 213-235.
Russell, Charles
1980
"The Context of Concept." In Harry R. Garvin, ed. Romanticism, Modernism, Postmodernism. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP I London/Toronto: Associated University
Presses, 181-193.
Ruthven, K. K.
1979
CriticalAssumptions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Schabert, Ina
1983
"Interauktorialitt." Deutsche VierteljahresschriJt fr Literaturwissenschaft & Geistesgeschichte 57, 679-701.
Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte
1988
"Text." In Ulrich Ammon et al., eds. Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of
, the Science of Language and Society. 2 vols. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1205-1215.
Swingewood, Alan
1986
Sociological Poetics and Aesthetic Theory. Basingstoke/London: Macmillan.
Tallis, Raymond
1988
Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory. Basingstoke/London:
Macmillan.
Bypassing Intertextuality
59
123-146 ..
61
analogy, and by the same token the above representation of the INTERTEXT, is
absent in the innermost recesses of its very presence. Like an idee fixe, the salient
and intriguing feature of spreading 'intertextual connections' is their overrunning 'everywhereness' in the open heterotopia of the absent. Images of ambiguity, vistas on methods of disambiguation, perspectives on ...
HANS-GEORGE RUPRECHT
One would be hard put, irrespective of a doute cartesien about assertory cognizing in general, to find a more appropriate image of current research in/on INTERTEXTUALITY 1 than the rankly growing and vertiginiously climbing ivy vi ne (see
the bibliographies by Bruce 1983 and in Broich & Pfister 1985, 349-359).
Correspondingly, it might be hypothesized that the rhizophagous growth
(deep structure?) and the rhizomorphous branching (surface structure?) of the
INTERTEXT present the appearance of a living organism. Thus, one could say, and
no matter whether the question is or was - how to construct/deconstruct, logically, the pragmatic, syntactic and semantic (in/trans )ference of 'meanings' from
TEXTS to TEXTS: 'Node on node', then, cast in the 'primal' FORM OF TEXTUALITY.
And why not, following Goethe in "Die Metamorphose der Pflanze"? (For a
discussion of Goethe's ideas 9n "Geprgte Form, die lebend sich entwickelt" as
in "Urworte, orphisch" (1817/1820) in respect to present-day life systems research and the genetic code, s'ee Blumenberg 1981, 372-409; Amrine 1987). As if
the INTERTEXT were in astate of dynamic nonequilibrium, - evergreening (cf.
Babloyantz 1986, foreword by 1. Prigogine). Like the flourishing ivy vine,
whose leaves eventually dry up the closer they are to the ground while its life
sustaining foliage contributes, regardless of the seasonal changes in the environment, to the formation of new offshoots, a LITERARY INTERTEXT in particular
displays, be it continuously, at intervals or cyclically here and there, many a
fresh 'leaflet' together with the yellowing pages of some ancient, so-called 'classic text'.
Inevitably, a captious critic of these analogies will question the observer's
uncertain perception of the phenomenon. At present, it might suffice to consider Sartre's (1940, 31, 98 ff.) observations according to which the object of an
1
It is advisable to read the notions printed in sm all caps with the critical awareness of their problematic belonging to the domain of knowledge, which is under scrutiny; that is to say, there is an
INTERTEXTUALITY, and INTERTEXT, etc. if and only if their variables can be quantified in terms of
predicate logic. As far as their occurrence in hypothetical statements is concerned, it should be
understood that they are not necessarily subjected to logical bivalence.
Stretching the biological analogy a little further one could say, tongue in cheek
because the hedera is sacred to Bacchus (and hence to Dionysus the patron of
ritual ecstasy, drama and the carnelevarium), that the meta-intertextual discourse tends to be 'flowerly' intertwined with the conceptual circumlocutions
for its very loquacity. Its semantic ambiguities (propositional, categorial, structural; cf. Hirst 1987) in relation to the intertextual process per se connect with
the focus on the 'edges' and the 'borderline' phenomena (affinities, resemblances, contrasts, shades of difference, etc.) of the meaning productive process.
This can be illustrated in terms of an emblematic motto taken from Ovid' s
Metamorphoses (lib. VI, v. 127). It stands by reference to Arachne's weaving
skills to intertextual practice in general:
,
(a) ultima pars telae, tenui circumdata limbo,
nexilibus flores hederis habet intertextos.
If it is the case that this image tells us something about the artistry of Arachne's
mounting the intertextum, itwould appear, then, that one could consider Ovid's
comment on Minerva's guile as the epitome of an "intertextual frame" (Eco
1979,21). In fact, he is overcoding her false colors, i.e., 'peaceful' warnings to
Arachne, her challenger in the art of intertextual design. Let us look at Ovid's
(Met., lib. VI, v. 101) framing description:
(b) circuit extremas oleis pacalibus oras,
is modus est operisque sua facit arbore finem.
The first point to note is that both strings of poetic discourse are concisely
referring to the borderline phenomena of closure: (a) "ultima pars telae"; (b)
"extremas oras". Furthermore, they are comparable in respect to their suggestive (intradiscursive) passing reference to the forms of expression and of content.
While these forms shape the web by tradition ("antiquas telas" being implied
[ibid., v. 145] and 'intertextually' by tracing ancient subject matter 'downwards'
to the present - "et vetus in tela deducitur argumentum" [ibid., v. 69; my emphasis J), the expression-form and the content-form do in fact determine the
transtextual meaning effects as well as the mythemic semiosis of the woven,
poetically transcoded textures. But notice the difference between (a) and (b) as
to Ovid's coreferential focus. On the subject of Minerva's craft it is cataphoric
insofar as the 'peaceful olive-wreath' prefigures inversely the mortal punishment to be' inflicted on her challenger. Pragmatically speaking, it is of course an
interpretative, missive coreferentialization of an emblematic cliche. It functions
i,
"
62
H.-G. Ruprecht
If this is the case, it seems then that more light ought to be shed on the reconstruction of JNTERTEXTUALITY in view of its manifest and latent mo des of existence.
2. Contingencies in Perspective
Everybody knows that the structuralist cognizance of the so-called literary text
- What was/is 'literariness' in relation to 'textness'? - and, subsequently, the
neo- and poststructuralist critiques of this approach have produced a multiplicity of conceptual clusters. It is also well known that some of them have been
intrinsically connected and/or cogently contrasted with the NaTION of intertexKristeva). (Cf. Angenot 1983; Genette 1982; Grivel1982; Jacques
tualite
1987; Labarriere 1987; Plett 1985, 1986; Riffaterre 1985 and earlier; Ruprecht
1983, 1986; Somville 1987; Segre 1988; further references in Bruce 1983; Broich
& Pfister 1985.) While some literary critics still have the tendency to cast these
conceptual clusters to the winds like sapless grapelets which might pollute the
hortus conclusus of esthetics, oth~rs keep them stored up in the higher, theoryladen galleries of the "Biblioteca de Babel" where the sustaining framework of
reference might eventually crumble into dust.
In view, for instance, of the tomprehensive sense T. Eagleton (1983, 138) gives
to the 'intertextual' by virtue of what he believes to be the mind-set and the
theoretical discourse of the "post-structuralists", many a well-read theoretician
of literature will most likely be concerned about this confinement. To shed more
light on this background, further discussions are required: epistemological conditions for differentiated propositional attitudes concerning the FJELDS of intertextuality. This is because of the diversified material, the socio- and ideotechnical unfolding of, for example, the 'cinematic', the 'ethnographie', the 'literary',
the 'musical' and the 'pictorial' fields of the JNTERTEXT (see references in Morgan
1985), including the field of 'theatre semiotics' (de Toro 1987; 1988). And what
about another stumbling block to a model-theoretic discourse on 'intertextuality today', namely the academic interest, the 'Why?' of an intertextual research
activity in relation to the professional belief system, be it that of an 'open' or a
'closed' mind (cf. Rokeach 1960)?
Even though "intertextual knowledge" (Eco 1979, 21) has been construed,
convincingly and/or conjecturally - <;a depend! -, it raises nonetheless a fundamental epistemological question. How does one account for the fact that some
a.
TEXTURES whichappear to
63
r7,'
~I
64
H.-G. Ruprecht
In terms of this example, which H. F., Plett rightly sets up against the background of the classic decorumlindecorum conventions (for a discussion of other
approaches to parody see Dion & Laforest 1987), it is perfectly clear to what
extent the explicatory potential of the critic's own discourse hinges upon the
historical anchorage of the subject matter. As students of literature would have
to notice, this example can only be understood 'intertextually', that is with the
full awareness of some presupposed and of course well-known connexions. To
mention only two:
(a) between the conception of 'parody as inversion' and Scaliger's Poetics
(1561), which stipulated: "Est igitur parodia rhapsodia inversa mutatis vocibus ad ridicula sensum retr;ahens" (Genette 1982,21; cf. also his 'transformational' concept of parody, ibid. 33 ff.);
(b) between the genre-specific hierarchy of styles and the classic rota Virgilii (cf.
Curtius 1954,602) whichhas been kept running, so to speak, throughout the
Renaissance and beyond, other generic conventions (vernacular, medieval,
etc.) notwithstanding.
Moreover, what the focus on a "potential normative conflict" (H. F. Plett) implicitly highlights is the process of the 'bestowal of sense' (Husserl's Sinngebung) through knowledge. This might include a scholarly re-examination of
the problems of normative poetics in conjunction with the differences/resemblances between, say, Puttenham's (1589), Gracian's (1647), Lamy's (1699) and
Gottsched's (1751) rhetorical poetic treatises. At the same time the works of
Jonson and Philips, of Furetiere and Scarron, of Bodmer and Blumauer might
recapture the scholar's attention. To test this hypothesis of implicature, itwill be
useful to be reminded hereinafter of Paul Scarron's Virgile travesti en vers burlesques (1648-1652). (Which is of course one of G. Genette's [1982J privileged
examples.)
65
l.
66
H.-G. Ruprecht
tuality of "quotation and context" (Plett 1986, 311), for instance, in the VIth
Book of Scarron's Virgile travesti (1858, 210). To substantiate the modeltheoretic interest of the context, it will suffice to mention that in this book
Scarron recontextualized Aeneas' underworld experience. At the entrance of the
Orcus (Vergil, Aeneid, lib. VI, v. 273-281) the hero is not only faced with personified sufferings (Grief, avenging Anxiety, Diseases, Hunger) and other miseries, but also with the Furies. Moreover, he comes upon the "insane Discord
with snakes as her hair confined by bloody woolen bands" (Vergil, Aen., VI, 280
[1977, 10; 120]: "et Discordia demens uipereum crinem uittis innexa cruentis").
Very roughly, one could say that this thematic figuritivization of Aeneas' underworld experience illustrates what 17th-century normative esthetics implied by a
'fitting figure' of 'high' and/or 'sublime style', and, as it was clear to everyone,
Vergil could serve as a model. Bernard Lamy (1699), the influential though not
always respected rhetorician, res ta ted this as follows:
Son Enei'd est dans le caractere sublime, il n'y parle que de sieges, que de guerres, que de Princes,
que de Heros. Tout y est magnifique, les sentiments, & les paroles: La grandeur des expressions
repond a la grandeur du sujet. (271)
What accounts for Scarron's success as a burlesque writer is of course the fact
that the subject matter of his Virgile travesti disprportionally endows the fields
of the heroie with the discursive potential of the 'mean style'. As a 'reasonably'
judicious writer - in terms of Bernard Lamy (1699, 245 ff.) it matters indeed
"d' en juger raisonnablement comme le doit faire un honnete hornrne" - Scarron
then discreetly connects the thematic role of 'viper = dis cord' with a whole set of
contemporary actorial manifestations. Since their sociological significance is not
at stake here (cf. Koritz 1977, 65 ff.), it will do to touch upon the following
mediation:
Force pedans et gouverneurs,
Aussi grands fats que grands parleurs;
Des tyrans et de mauvais princes,
Un gros d'intendans de provinces,
Suivis de larrons fuseliers,
Meles de quelques maUltiers;
De creanciers une brigade,
Et de presentateurs d'estocade;
Enfin tous les maux qu'ici-bas
On craint autant que les trepas. (222)
67
It could be shown mathematically, following R. Thom (cf. Wild gen 1982,42 ff.),
that this change in semantic quality unfolds in respect to its correlates as the
standard cusp. Given the polarity of a "stable attractor", that is to say the norm
of a self-regulatory 'bien-seance', Scarron's potentially conflictive intertextual
practice corresponds to a semio-pragmatic catastrophe; and, of course, this links
to the semantics of 'decency' and 'good taste'. Precisely, as is the case of B.
Lamy's (1699, 255) definition of esthetic judgment, that is "le discernement de
tout ce qui se doit dire & de ce qui se doit taire" , there is then a modalized
potential, a deontic modalization of instability. But where is the INTERTEXT as an
object of reconstruction?
Since this is not the place to displaya network of intertextual relations, only
two points will be made to shed some light upon the topological nature of the
bifurcating path from author to critic. Clearly, to break more ground in this area
of research where, for instance, Scarron and L. S. Koritz (1977) appear to be the
"possessors" of INTERTEXTUALITY, the following dynamic non-equilibrium
should come into focus.
First, at a necessary point ab quo the focus is contingent on a multistable
tradition, that is on post-Homeric epic and on early Latin poetic conventions.
This classical tradition comprises also the ancient 'Aeneiskritik' (H. Georgii; cf.
Austin in Vergi11977, 39, 42 and elsewhere). Yet what appears to be stable is
only relatively so insofar as it relates to a point of bifurcation, which is in fact a
moment of disturbance: Scarron and the burlesque, travesting tradition in
France (cf. Bar 1960). It is widely known that the latter trend did mock the
Aeneid (e.g., de Mountech 1648, Furetiere 1649, Barciet 1650, de Bergoing 1652,
Duprat 1666, etc.; cf. Genette 1982,65, who is following V. Fournel's preface in
Scarron, op. cit.) more than any other work of the ancient 'magni auctores'.
Second, at a possible point ad quem, the focus on INTERTEXTUALITY is an
unthinkable covariance of unlimited semiosis. With regard to this process, it is not
surprising that L. S. Koritz (1977, 185), for example, brings hirns elf to believe in
the following connexion. U pon the 'discovery', in Scarron' s Roman comique
(1651), chapter VII (Scarron 1955, 194), of a different recontextualization of the
Discord personification, Koritz implicitly asserts hirns elf as the "possessor" of
intertextual knowledge. Whatever its foundation, or its epistemic (in)validity,
this knowledge resultsfrom a reversible textual practice. In point of fact:
Mais la Discorde, aux crins de couleuvres, n'avait pas encore fait dans cette mais on-la tout ce
qu' elle avait envie d'y faire. (194)
Given this occurrence in the Roman comique, the critic (duly sanction~d by an
academic institution and with the placet of established expert scholars) resolves
this debatable issue into three components: (1) an allusion to Vergil; (2) a borrowing ("emprunt") from Malherbe's ode "A la Reine mere du Roi" (1610),
stanza 10; and (3) Doctor Koritz's main thesis, Scarron's satiric spirit, i.e., "c'est
clairement se moquer des batailles epiques des romans ala mode" (Koritz 1977,
185).
~,
68
H.-G. Ruprecht
Clearly, from a topological standpoint the issue is not whether one should
support or rule out these possibilities. In any case, the question suggests itself:
How should one go about an issue like this? Could it be that a more empirical
search into "the world of the text" (Eco, 1988, 56), induding inquiry into the
intention-based semantics (cf. Schiffer 1982) of 'Textweltbeschreibung' (as in
DorfmIler-Karpusa 1981, 140ff.), would result, if anything, in a decidable
truth-value of any such multiconnected components? Moreover, would this research have to be conducted while setting aside the numerous arguments about
the (in-)compatibility of intention-based semantics with truth-conditional
semantics? Obviously, the execution of this research plan concerning the INTERTEXT would meet with many difficult problems. WeIl, what of it?
What is primarily at stake here, once again it might be argued, concerns the
prospect of a search to be focused on the catastrophe theoretic implications of
the critic's intertextual reading. How many of the alleged transtextual connect~ons are ~n fac.t d.ue to a topological author(Scarron)-critic(Koritz) interdigitauon? By Idenufymg Scarron's "emprunt" (notice the semantic features of 'emprunter' = deriv. from Lat. 'im-pro-mutare', i.e., Itime-bound/+/action/+/rev~rsible/+/taking vs. giving/+/appropriation/) the critic does in effect identify
hIrns elf as a co-possessor of the INTERTEXT. In this respect he partakes, unfolds
in terms of a semantic catastrophe (capture/release), in "sudden and remarkable
displacements in space-time" (Wildgen 1982, 28). Theoretically put, following
R. Thom, one could say that the INTERTEXTUALITY under discussion lends itself
on the one han.d (Scarron: :Vergil) to a qualitative and on the other (Koritz
: :Scarron: :Vergll: :Malherbe, etc.) to a localistic interpretation. The contention
is of course that both "interpretations", as weIl as their branching topological
dynami~s, are subject to a more ri?orous, mathematical and geometrical, representatlon. Knowledge and/or bellef?
3. I nstances of Differentiation
The foregoing is not meant to be a panacea for the heuristic problems which arise
from the entropic, historically grounded potentialities of INTERTEXTUALITY. On
the contrary, it is an attempt to place the genuine instability of any transtextual
configuration in the foreground of analysis. If the general proposition holds that
the catastrophe theoretic modelization of textual processes (cf. Merrell 1985;
~ilber?erg.1988) helps to un.derstand the dynamic unfolding of a literary system
mdudmg ItS rnorphogenetlc potentialities, then the following propositional
functors should be considered as weIl: Where? frorn wh at ? when? why? how?
for what purpose and to what point, etc. does the INTERTEXT manifest this kind
of dy.namics? U nderlying these questions are, of course, the researcher' s perspectlves on the 'textuallandscape' that is part of his/her own cultural environment. Metap~orically and ~aguely put though it may be, however, this brings up
further questlOns concermng a whole set of interrelated problems: cultural
69
70
H.-G. Ruprecht
tertext; and, at the same time, the send-off given to the first simultaneous television performance of the World Philharmonie Orchestra uniting, visuaIly via
satellite, musicians from Montn!al and choirs in Moscow, Geneva and San Francisco. In a general way, perhaps, this performance of the finale of Beethoven's
9th Symphony is a 'postmodern' happening, where the medium is the message
(M. McLuhan) - "Seid umschlungen, Millionen!".)
Considering the transduction of heterogeneous object semiotics, one may
wonder how the transtextual perfusion (Genette) could be fuIly understood
without further thoughts on the syntacticaIly ordered categories of temporality.
Is there a syntax which accounts for the 'continuous' - ('concomitant' /'isochronical') - 'discontinuous' as weIl as for the 'anterior' - ('omnitemporality' /
'atemporality') - 'posterior'? In short, while it seems reasonable for many a
historian of literature to believe in a chronological sequencing of the transtextual
process, it is probably as ratiocinative to suggest the following: The many-tomany relationship between the spreading and the spread INTERTEXTUALITY
strikes the 'attractors' (individual, coIlective, institutional, etc.) as an instanciated catastrophe of one-to-one relations that are seemingly in astate of interdiscursive Fliegleichgewicht (L. von Bertalanffy). What is to be discovered, however, is the instanciating pregnance of the many-to-one and the one-to-many
intertextual relations. This instability includes, it may be hypothesized, the researcher's corroborative and time delaying capture of the INTERTEXT through aIl
the possible bifurcations of its spatio-temporal unfolding.
Ever since the NOTIONS of "intertexte" and "intertextualite" were first formulated by J. Kristeva (1969) -"to say nothing of her epexegetical comments on
M. M. Bakhtin's discursive polyphony (cf. Todorov 1981; Segre 1988) - the "Intertextualittsdebatte" (Schmeling 1988) has propagated numerous conceptual
frameworks and models. Like any procedure of humanistic inquiry, they could
be questioned as to their functions within the context of systemic thinking. But
this is not the place to foIlow in a model-theoretic attempt towards a critique of
current 'modelizing', be it exploratory or explanatory, descriptive or prescriptive (constructive), reductive or integrative. In aIl events, from R. Barthes' (1984,
73) arguments on "l'intertextuel dans lequel est pris tout texte" to G. Genette's
(1982, 492) "structuralisme ouvert", from M. Riffaterre's (1978) triadic semiological model to C. Grivel's (1982) thought-provoking thirty-one "Theses preparatoires [sie] sur les [sie] intertextes" (for additional references see Bruce 1983;
Broich & Pfister 1985), there is one major concern. It may be argued that this
concern is equaIly shared, different methodologies notwithstanding, by 'intertextualists' and natural scientists (H. R. Maturana, F. G. Varela, A. M. Andrew,
etc.): namely, as M. Zeleny (1981,155) puts it, "that autopoiesis and allopoiesis
are complementary characterizations" not only of a living system but also of a
71
72
H.-G. Ruprecht
73
Figure
TEXTS in a dynamic state of non-equilibrium
MEMORY/OBLIVION of textual
autopoiesis
~
+ referential dissipation
{eti~}
emlC
formants
d'la-textuaI structures
+ new {macro}
.
mlcro
allopoiesis + increasing dissipation: "intertexts" ~
.
b'l'
msta
Ilty
INTERTEXTS/TEXTS (negentropies) ~
[~
= vectors ofINTERTEXTUALIZATIONJ
A final remark, which is for obvious reasons inconclusive: From the preceding
propositions one might get the impression that this program of enquiry will
result, all in all, in a referential tautology. WeIl, it could also be said - precisely!
Giving due regard to what M. Eigen (1975) has stated at the outset of his influential article on "Evolutionary Games", let us take in, henceforwards [interdiscursivelyJ the basic rule of reconstruction as he puts it: "The origin of life [intertextualityJ is tautologous with the origin of biological [textologicalJ information."
Therefore, ours the task, may be eternal.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Walter D. Mignolo (University of Michigan),
and my colleagues at Carleton U niversity, in particular Arnd Bohm, Georges R.
Carmody, Pierre Laurette and Barry Rutland for stimulating discussions, which
were, implicity, related to the subject matter of this article. For helpful suggestions concerning the improvement of its first version, I am indebted to my colleague A. T..Tolley.
11'I
74
H.-G. Ruprecht
Bibliography
Amrine, Fredrick, et aL, eds.
1987
Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science,
97. Dordrecht/Boston: ReideL
Anderson, J ohn R.
1983
"A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory." Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 23,261-295.
Angenot, Marc
1983
"L'intertextualite: Enquete sur l' emergence et la diffusion d'un champ notionnel."
Revue des sciences humaines 60/189,121-135.
Axhausen, Kte
1974
Die Theorien ber den Ursprung der provenzalischen Lyrik. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints (orig. 1937).
Babloyantz, Agnessa
1986
Molecule Dynamics and Life: An Introduction to Se/f-Organization of Matter. New
York: Wiley-Interscience Publications.
Bar, Francis
1960
Le genre burlesque en France au XVIIe siede: Etude de style. Paris: Artrey.
Barthes, Roland
1953
Le degre zero de l'ecriture. Paris: Seuil.
1984
Le bruissement de la langue: Essais critiques IV, Paris: SeuiL
Blumenberg, Hans
1981
Die Lesbarkeit der Welt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Bouissac, Paul
1985
"Neurosemiotics, aDefinition." Recherches Semiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry 5,
223-224.
Broich, Ulrich & Manfred Pfister, eds.
1985
Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Bruce, Donald
1983
"Bibliographie annotee: Ecrits sur l'intertextualite." Texte 2, 217-258.
Bunge, Mario
1967
Foundations of Physics. New York: Springer.
Curtius, Ernst Robert
1954
Europische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. Bern/Mnchen: Francke, 2nd ed.
Derrida, J acques
1983
"The Time of a Thesis: Punctuations." Tr. K. McLaughlin. In A. Montefiore, ed.
Philosophy in France Today. Cambridge/London/New York: Cambridge Up,
34-66.
Dion, Robert & Marty Laforest
1987
"Avatars de la parodie: Definitions et applications du concept de 'parodie'." Recherches Semiotiques 1 Semiotic Inquiry 7, 73-87.
Dorfmller-Karpusa, Kthi
1981
"Kavafis K. P. 'MI~H QPA': Eine intensionalsemantische Analyse." In K. Dorfmller-Karpusa & J. S. Petfi, eds. Text, Kontext, Interpretation: Einige Aspekte der
texttheoretischen Forschung. Hamburg: Buske, 110-153.
Eagleton, Terry
1983
Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: BlackwelL
Eco, Umberto
1979
The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington/London: Indiana UP.
1988
"On Truth: A Fiction." In U. Eco, et aL, eds. Meaning and Mental Representations.
Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana Up, 41-60.
75
Eigen, Manfred
1975
"Evolutionary Games." In I. R. Miller, ed. Stability and Origin of Biological Information: The First Aharon Katzir-Katchalsky Conference Gune 23-28, 1973]. New
York/Toronto: Wiley/Jerusalem: Israel Up, 119-122.
Fiske, Donald W. & Richard A. Shweder
"Pluralisms and Subjectivities." In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder, eds. Metatheory in
1986
Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities. Chicago/London: Chicago Up,
362-377.
Foley, Richard
1987
The Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, Mass.lLondon: Harvard UP.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre. Paris: SeuiL
Greimas, Algirdas Julien & J oseph Courtes
1979
Semiotique: Dictionnaire raisonne de la theorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.
1982
Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. Tr. L. Christ et aL Bloomington:
Indiana UP (orig. 1979).
et aL 1986 Semiotique: Dictionnaire raisonne de la theorie du langage. VoL 2. Paris: Hachette.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien
1987
On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. Tr. P.J. Perron & F. H. Collins.
Theory and History of Literature, 37. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Grivel, Charles
"Les universaux de texte." Litterature 30, 25-50.
1978
1982
"Theses preparatoires sur les intertextes. " In R. Lachmann, ed. Dialogizitt. Mnchen: Fink, 237-248.
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1988
"Language and the Order of Nature." In N. Fabb, et al., eds. The Linguistics of
Writing: Arguments Between Language and Literature. New York: Methuen,
135-154.
Heger, Klaus
Die bisher verffentlichten Hargas und ihre Deutungen. Tbingen: Niemeyer (orig.
1960
1937).
Hirst, Graem
Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution ofAmbiguity. Cambridge/London/New
1987
York: Cambridge UP.
J acques, Francis
"Le moment du texte." In Jean Greisch, ed. Le texte comme objet philosophique.
1987
Philosophie 12, Institut catholique de Paris. Paris: Beauchesne, 15-85.
Koritz, Lester S.
1977
Scarron satirique. Introd.G. Mongredien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Kristeva, Julia
"Le mot, le dialogue et le roman." Semeiotike: Recherches pour une semanalyse.
1969
Paris: Seuil, 143-173.
Labarriere, Pierre-J ean
"Textes surTexte: Ou comment (le) taire?" InJean Greisch, ed. Le texte comme objet
1987
philosophique. Philosophie 12, Institut catholique de Paris. Paris: Beauchesne,
163-172.
Lamy, Bernard
1699
La Rhhorique ou l'Art de parler. Amsterdam: Paul Marrey, Marchand Libraire.
Livingston, Paisley
1988
Literary Knowledge: H umanistic Inquiry and the Philosophy ofScience. Ithaca/London: Cornell UP.
Marciszewski; Witold, ed.
1981
Dictionary o[ Logic As Applied in the Study of Language. The Hague/Boston/London: Nijhoff.
76
H.-G. Ruprecht
Merrell, Floyd
1985
A Semiotic Theory ofTexts. Approaches to Semiotics, 70. Berlin/New Yorkl Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Monod, J acques
1970
Le hasard et la necessite: Essais sur la philosophie naturelle de la biologie moderne.
Paris: Seuil.
1988
Pour une hhique de la connaissance. Textes reunis et presentes par B. Fantini. Paris:
La Decouverte.
Morgan, Thais E.
1985
"Is there an Intertext in this Text? Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to
Intertextuality." American Journal of Semiotics 3, 1-40.
Ovid
1944
Metamorphoses. Tr. EJ. Miller. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard UP.
Parret, Herman, ed.
1983
On Believing: Epistemological and Semiotic Approach es. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter.
Plett, Heinrich E
1975
Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse: Semiotik, Linguistik, Rhetorik. Heidelberg:
Quelle & Meyer (2nd ed. 1979).
"Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In U. Broich & M. Pfister,
1985
eds. Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen:
Niemeyer, 78-98.
"The Poetics of Quotation." Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis:
1986
Sectio Linguistica 17, 293-313.
Prigogine, Ilya & R. Lefever
1975
"Stability and Thermodynamic Properties of Dissipative Structures in Biological
Systems." In I. R. Miller, ed. Stability and Origin of Biological Information: The
First Aharon Katzir-Katchalsky Conference Uune 23-28, 1973]. New YorklToronto: Wiley/Jerusalem: Israel Up, 26-57.
IIsabelle Stengers
1979
La nouvelle alliance: Mh~morphose de la science. Paris: Gallimard.
.
Reiss, Timothy J.
1988
The Uncertainty ofAnalysis: Problems in Truth, Meaning, and Culture.lthaca/London: Cornell UP.
..
Riffaterre, Michael
1978
Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington/London: Indiana UP.
1985
"The Interpretant in Literary Semiotics." American Journal of Semiotics 3, 41-56.
Rokeach, Milton
1960
The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and
Personality Systems. New York: Basic Book~.
Ruprecht, Hans-George
1975
"Memoire (R) poesie mythe et pratique discursive." Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, 2, 97-110.
1977
"L'intertexte isotope: Horridum somnium, de Julian deI Casal." NorthsouthlNordsud: CanadianJournal of LatinAmerican Studies 2, 223-249.
"Conditions semiotiques d'un intertexte : Le modernisme de J ulian del Casal." In R.
1980
Heyndels, ed. Litterature. Enseignement. Socihe. Bruxelles: Editions de l'Universite
de Bruxelles, 366-394.
1981
"Du formant intertextuel: Remarques sur un objet ethnosemiotique." Actes Semiotiques. Documents de recherche du Groupe de Recherches semio-linguistiques
(E.H.E.S.S./C.N.R.S.), IH, 21,1-27.
"Intertextualite." Texte 2,13-22.
1983
1985
"Comparatisme et connaissance: Hypotheses semiotiques sur la litterature comparee." In H. Parret & H.-G. Ruprecht, eds. Aims and Prospects of Semiotics: Essays
77
GARY A. PHILLIPS
Sign/Text/Differance
The Contribution of Intertextual Theory to Biblical Criticism
ality and its practical importance for explaining the complexities and thickness
of biblical texts. 2
The penchant in general for avoiding theoretical reflection, to be leary of, even
at times to denigrate, its practice,3 is pervasive and, some have argued, constitutive of mainstream, modern exegetico-theological discourse and its dominant
positivist ideology. 4 At professional meetings, theoretical discussions ab out
modern exegetical foundations and practices typically elicit impatient, even hostile, responses; they are viewed as detracting from the biblical exegete's primary
effort, namely to describe the text and to interpret its meaning, which means to
read and interpret texts using historical and philologically based methods. Simply put, theory obscures, delays, frustrates the effort to disclose the truth of the
text because it does not remain with a certain type of historical question. 5 This
reluctance to place textual and intertextual concerns within a comprehensive
theoretical framework means that for the most part exegetes are shut out of
important debates taking place over textual issues in semiotic, narratological and
deconstructive circles, conversations that have a direct bearing upon the exegete's critical task. To be knowledgeable today about the conte nt of the classical and koine Greek corpus, the historical context and purposes these texts
served, and the hermeneutical traditions which have been developed for interpreting them, means more than having a philological-style competence; it demands a certain theoretical sophistication, a thinking systemically, a modeling
structurally. If exegetes are to take seriously the call to explain and interpret the
text in the present context after the structural turn, 6 they can not ignore the
theoreticallinkages to textual and intertextual study forged with the thought of
Saussure, Peirce, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, De Man, Kristeva and BaI, to name
a few. Situating the problem of intertextuality on a theoretical footing has thus
become a practical necessity.
The general reluctance to engage theory as a means for explaining textual and
intertextual phenomena is deeply rooted in disciplinary and ideological constraints which frame the understanding of the modern text-critical problematic,
namely, that o[ overcoming the text's otherness as an object and recouping its
The prevailing approach to these intertextual matters is to treat them as discrete and essentially
unrelated phenomena, and further to explain them in theological terms. For example, the Pauline
appropriation of Hebrew Scriptures in the Letters to the Galatians and Romans is read with a
view toward explaining a Christian theological purpose rather than as an instance of Rabbinicstyle intertextual practice, And in the Gospels, the theological indination to read the narratives as
realistic story obscures the complex intertextual weaving of these texts. Ironically, the impetus to
read the biblical texts in nontheological ways has come from outside the field.
79
In the North American scene the two venues for biblical exegetes dedicated to broad-based
theoretical and interdisciplinary work have been: the Semiotics and Exegesis Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, and the defunct Westar Institute's Literary Facets Seminar.
This posture is summed up in the remarkably typical statement of one exegete: "Wer nichts von
der Sache wei, der spricht von Methode." (Ringgren 1966, 641)
A form of this critique is articulated by cells of biblical scholars who are energetically engaged in
conversation about ideology, either from the politico-economic side or from the literary theoretical side (cf. e.g. Sejf van Tilborg 1986, xii ff.; Phillips 1988,2-7).
This in spite of the etymological significance of theorein as "to see as, to visualize, to gain a
perspective. "
This is Jean-Marie Benoist's (1975) designation for the epistemic environment in the aftermath of
the structural revolution in linguistics, anthropology, literary studies, etc., across both the human and social sciences.
80
G. A. Phillips
10
11
In view here is the traditional, operative distinction - owing to Dilthey - between description and
explanation, which is fundamental to the modern conception of the human sciences (cf. Paul
Ricoeur 1971,135-145).
Associated most directly with American N ew Criticism as made known through Northrop Frye
1973. Cf. in particular the special edition of Semeia 31 (1985), "Reader Response Approaches to
Biblical and Secular Texts."
The use of "paradigm" in this context is owing to Thomas Kuhn 1981, chap. 1. Cf. Hans Frei's
important historical description of the transformation of paradigms which brought biblical scholarship into its "modern" historical form, eclipsing its classical antecedents (Frei 1974,2-19).
"Structural" here would include linguistic, psychoanalytic, discursive and more. For the classic
statement of biblical structural exegesis cf. Daniel Patte 1974 (chap. 1), 1975 for a representative
sampie of structural exegesis.
Cf. my fuller assessments of the transformation of contemporary biblical scholarship from
"modern" to "postmodern" forms in Phillips 1985, 111-119 especially and Phillips (forthcoming
1992). Cf., too, the special edition of Semeia 51: "Poststructural Criticism and the Bible: Text/
History/Discourse," in particular Phillips 1990; also important is Burnett 1988.
81
critically about text and its relations hip to context and reader in diachronie,
formalist terms, remained weIl ensconced and continues today both to frame the
critical problematic for exegetes and to dictate the means for answering its questions.
However, critical rumblings can be heard on the horizon that portend change
in the way scholars of religious texts conceive of the critical task at hand and
therefore of the practical steps to be taken in analyzing and explaining textual
phenomena. In the terminology of M. Foucault a different discursive practice is
appearing, marginal although it may be at the present time (Foucault 1972). This
indicates a transformation of the field's discursive rules, which, over aperiod of
time, wiIllikely force a reframing of the textual problematic on a discipline-wide
basis. Feminist, psychoanalytic, politico-ideological, deconstructive, poststructural and postmodernist theorists have shouldered their way into the tradition al
sites of biblical and theological analysis bringing with them different critical
agendas and interests. Notwithstanding their very great methodological diversity, all insist upon the need for theoretical reflection and the refusal to separate
theory from praxis.
In this regard, deconstructive thought presents a major challenge in particular
to modern biblical exegetical habits (Burnett, 1990). Modern biblical exegesis is
grounded in an analytical philosophie al tradition whose tendency is to leave
unexamined presumptions about its instrumental conception of language. Derrida's ontological critique of what he refers to as the logocentric foundationalism of modern Western thought makes deconstructive critique both a serious
theoretical and praxical threat to the prevailing notions of meaning, intent, text,
interpretation and structure, and beyond that to the modern historical problematic of recovering some lost, originary meaning. From the feminist side, the
critique of patriarchy, power and ideology directed to the institutional practice
and production of textual scholarship and normative theological interpretation
contributes equally to an undermining of a set of presumptive ideas and behaviors about the nature of the theological task: theology can no Ion ger get by
appealing to the cultural-historical necessity of the god-givenness of its maledominated thinking and action. 12
lt is in this context of shifting, agonistic frameworks that the nature of the
critical problematic for biblical criticism today is being rethought and for which
the discussion of intertextual theory becomes exceedingly important. Occasioned in large measure by attention to sign, structure, and language, which
was the historie contribution of structural linguistics,13 semiotic and deconstructive theorists are especially helpful in framing the intertextual question in
pertinent and provocative ways for the biblical scholar. Semiotic and decon-
12
13
For an example of a critic who brings an important feminist and postmodern critique to traditional exegetical and theological concerns cf. Mieke Bai 1987, 1988 and 1991.
Cf. JacqU(!s Derrida's critique of the structuralist moment in Derrida 1977 and Derrida 1972 on
the impact of the structural moment in relation to the Western metaphysical tradition.
82
G. A. Phillips
83
The first observation to make is that the intertextual phenomenon can be framed
as a fundamentally semiotic process: sign in relation to sign. 15 Following C. S.
Peirce's triadic and categorical model of the sign,16 we can say that the sign
structure is made up of three elements: sign/ground (more or less equivalent to
Saussure's "signifier"), object and interpretant (equivalent to Saussure's "signified"). For Peirce, each and every sign can become an element within or for
another sign by virtue of the functional relationship of the elements of the sign to
one another: sign/ground, object and interpretant or a complex combination of
these elements in one sign can become sign or a triadic part in its own right, each
in turn with its sign/ground, object and interpretant; and each of these elements
may become a further sign with its own triadic elements, and so forth, ad infinitum. 17 So, for example, the sign/ ground - object relationship in one sign can
function as the object to a second sign, which transforms the first interpretant
into a new :~.zn/ground demanding its interpretant, and so forth. We can represent the basic semiotic process as follows:
Sign l
}
~bject~~ ===?
---
Object1
/Interpretant 1/Sign 2
/
\
etc.
Interpretanf/Sign3
Fig.1
What determines the linkage qfone sign to another is "habit". The habit that
grounds the relation of sign to sign is not to be construed solely in behaviorist
14
15
16
17
84
G. A. Phillips
Sign / Text / Differance
terms but includes any rule, regulation, practice or pre-established law of continuity that enables the effective translation of one sign into another. As Peirce
notes, "[... ] a sign is not a sign unless it translates itself into another sign in
which it is more fully developed" (5.594). Indeed, translatability, as the linguist
Jakobson has argued, is "the main structural principle of language", and the
interpretant is what insures that "any sign is translatable into another sign in
which it is more fully developed." Gakobson 1971 b, 566).
Viewed thus as a continuous, synthetic process, semiosis is that activity in
which the interpretant effectively establishes a relationship between existing and
future signs in light of an already existing ground or principle of unity. The
interpretant is the principle of unity in semiosis that ins ures its continuity and
translatability into another sign (cf. 4.127; 5.284). However, just as the interpretant may not be reducible to crude behaviorist categories, neither can the
interpretant as a law of continuity be reduced psychologically to mental associations or aspects of consciousness. Rather, as an operative element of semiosis the
interpretant is constitutive of consciousness in the double sense of "of": as source
of consciousness, and as content of consciousness. 18 The interpretant as sign
functions as the source of unity, not the human being or his/her consciousness
who employs the sign. And while human beings do indeed "employ the sign",
the ground for that signification precedes his/her thinking and acting. The human is subject because she/he is subjected to this semiotic process, i.e. the interpretant as ground, and is not the originator of meaning. As subject to these
interpretants, human being is himself/herself a sign (5.314).
Peirce' s concept of interpretant thus provides a helpful way of explaining
intertextuality, in part, as that continuing process of semiosis by which texts
function as interpretants to other "texts", thereby establishing in the process
new text/signs which will form their own text/object/interpretant relationships,
and so forth. We may represen,t this process as follows:
semiotic trajectory leading from textto text to text operates with rules of formation. Although in principle no particul~r interpretant ~ay be forecast necessarily in advance, in fact habit delimits the mteq~retant.ch01ce. The law of tra~slata
bility that will propel text to text is a certam habit - we may speak of It a~ a
discursive or intertextual trajectory, even in one sense as a "text" -whose semIO.
tic power de facto rules in and r~le.s out i.n~e.rpretant possibilities..
So, to illustrate, tradition al blbhcal cntlclsm has argued that ~~e mcl~sl.on of
Jesus' parables of the Kingdom o~ God as a dis~rete textual tradltlOn wlthm.the
Gospel narratives was not an accldenta~ or arbltrary ~roc~ss but occurred m a
deliberate fashion that signals the partlcular theologlcal mterests a~~ textual
signature of each Evangelist/writer. T~e semiotic (in~ertextual) cond~tlons t~at
governed the possibility of incorporatmg t.he pa~ab~h~ texts of.1es~s m the fIrst
place preceded any one particular Evangeltst/wnter s mterpretl.ve lt~tent. T~us,
in the case ~f Luke's inclusion of the parable of the Good Samantan m the mldst
of a disputational discourse betweenJesus and the Pharisees, along with an embedded reference to the love command cited from Deuteronomy 6, the ground
for the intertextual relationship of Deuteronomic text to parable to enco~pass
ing Gospel narrative rests in the sign habit which is the source of umty. and
significance, namely a certain intertextual trajectory. I? other w?rds, nelther
J esus' Good Samaritan parable nor Luke' s Gospel n~rra~lve as s~ch lS the. ground
of authority for the former's inclusion an~ transl~tIO~ m Luke s narratIve. The
constitution of Luke's narrative as a meanmgfu~ slgn lS th~ res~lt of. an ~lr~ady
established habit/praxislsign, an intertextual traJectory WhlCh, m Pelrce s Vlew,
is the ground upon which the interpretant can be ext~nded.
Peirce's semiotic logic serves equally weIl to descnbe the s.t~tus of the reader
in relationship to the intertextual trajecto~ of the t~xt. ~p.eclflc :narkers of the
discursive subject or enunciation are mamfested lmgulsttcally m ~he .text (cf.
Benveniste 1970, 12; Jakobson 1971 a). We may identif! them as ~ndlces of a
particular semiotic practice or habit - evide?ce. o?ce ag~m of a ha~lt or rule of
translatability - in wh ich the markers of ~ubJeCtlVlty, wh~ch w?uld ~nclude temporality, spatiality, and modality functIOn as grar:-mattcal slg~shnterpr~ta~ts
for a given semiotic system (Greimas and C?urtes 19.82,
En~~clat.IOn).
The enunciative subject is manifested as the slgn of a dlscurs~ve pOSltlOn I? ~nd
through the material production and r.eceptio~ of te~t/sign. Slgns of e~UnCl~tl~n
then not only signal the already constltuted dlscurslve ro~e of the .subJect wlthm
a semiotic system (sign of a sign), but they also pla! a partlcularly .lmportant role
in the unfolding of the semiotic system along its mtertextual ~raJectory. En~n
ciative markers function as so-called "pragmatic" signs (Morns 1964) by Whl~h
the reader as recipient of and enunciatee to a text ~ranslates ~he text and ItS
enunciative signs into new signs/interpretants. ThlS translatIOn takes place
through the production of new texts and readers. ~e c.ould .say that real readers
in their discursive contexts can become pragmattc slgns/mterpret~nts of t~e
enunciative indices ("you," "now," "here," etc.) gestured by th.e text s enu~cl~
tion, and thereby continue through the very process of readmg the semIOtlc
Text'
- :: -,. /
} - ~--;'~d
\-- --
--------\\
Object'
Interpretant'/Text'
s.:.
\,/
85
... etc.
In terpretan f ITexe
Fig.2
r
86
trajectory in which both text and reader are mutually implicated as signs. From
this point of view enunciation functions to constitute the reader as a pragmatic
sign - man as sign according to Peirce - a sign in relation to a textual strategy, a
semiotic system, an intertextual trajectory.
G. A. Phillips
In the English translation I rnake use of the Revised Standard Version to supplement rny own
translation.
87
vice, "Go and do likewise" (v. 37 b). From a tradition al rhetorical viewpoint, the
narrative manifests a clear antiphonal, chiastic structure which contrasts the
Deuteronomic law withJesus' parable:
Lawyer questions
J esus counter-questions I
Lawyer responds
Jesus responds (imperative)
(knowledge of law)
(knowledge of law)
(knowledge of Dt. 6:5)
(praxis of law)
Lawyer questions
J esus counter-questions I
responds
Lawyer responds
J esus responds (imperative)
(knowledge of neighbor)
(knowledge of neighbor)
(knowledge of parable)
(praxis of neighbor)
Fig.3
The two halves of the narrative, however, relate in a much more dynamic fashion
when viewed in Peircian semiotic terms and when the intertextual process is put
into motion. From an intertextual perspective, we can describe the relationship
of the Deuteronomic love command to Jesus' parable to Luke's narration as a
series of interrelated sign/interpretants.
praxis of
law
(Sign1)
--.
1Objecf ,
J
--)!
(InterpretantI ISign2 )
I "Do this and you will live"
(?r~~:1)~ ~ ~ \~blj~C:i:,
life
(Interpretant'/Sign')
/
__ \ Gospel narrative of J esus
__ -- -as Servant of all
(Interpretant2/Sign3)
"Go and do likewise"
(Samaritan parable)
Fig.4
In the first question, the lawyer asks for a definition (Interpretant 1) of the
"praxis" (Sign 1) that signifies "eternallife" (Object1). Jesus leads the lawyer to
answer his own question by citing Dt. 6:5 to which J esus adds the interpretive
injunction, "Do this and you will live" (i.e., love God/love the neighbor). "Lov-
88
G. A. Philps
Sign / Text / Differance
ing" is the meaning of the praxis that leads to eternallife. The second question
does not simply repeat the previous question but further interprets or translates
the already given interpretant/text. "Doing the law" now becomes aSign 2 which
2
has as its I nterpretant the Samaritan parable and the injunction to do as the
Samaritan did. J esus' parabolic text thus functions as a new interpretant of the
law and is thus a more developed sign in relation to the question, "What do I do
to inherit eternallife?". At yet another level, Luke's narrative portrayal of J esus
throughout the Gospel as a figure "in service to aB" (Lk22:7) functions as an
encompassing narrative I nterpretant'l of both law and parable: the Gospel establishes the meaning of the law in relation to parable in terms of service to the
neighbor (e.g. feeding the crowds, healing the sick, dying on the cross, as a
model for others, etc.)
In enunciative terms, the implied "you" of the two imperatives "Do this, and
you wiIllive," and "Go and do likewise," constitutes a Signa and Objec~ that can
have at least two different Interpretants a: (1) to the lawyer inside the narrative,
and (2) to a discursive subject outside of the text, who is constituted as weIl in
and through the intertextual process. The reader as "you" is established within
the system of signs of which these texts are apart. Given the fact that the individual Interpretan~ of the enunciative sign "you" is translated outside of the
text, and is thus determined by the context of use, the injunctive character of the
text underscores the creative capacity of the semiotic process to generate ever
new interpretant/readers along the intertextual trajectory. When properly
translated, the text produces its own reader:
"You"
(Signa) "
"Do this and you wiBlive"
(Objece)
"Go and do likewise"
I
"You"
(Interpretane)
Lawyer
Reader#l
Reader#2
... etc.
Interpretant ~O the enunicative "you" and to the text. Becom~ng reader, however, does not necessarily guarantee the correct doing as narrative, parable, law,
or intertextual trajectory demand. The parenesis, which defines t~e Interpre~ar:-t
(reader) in relation to the intertextual trajectory, remains only a vlftual pos~lbll
ity. Indeed, one ~f the unanswered questions emer?cing fro~ the ~se of Pelr~e's
semiotic model IS, what guarantees or controls proper readmg or actIOn
(translation). How does one speak of interp.r:tive con~traint~, if at.all? From the
perspective of its contribution to modern cntIca~ pr~ctlce, thls s~mlOt~c model of
intertextuality provides an alternative way of thmking the relatlonshlp between
inside and outside of the text but not its own interpretive grounds.
While it is possible from one perspective to distinguish the praxis ~nside fro~
that outside the text, Peirce's semiotic model suggests that that dlffer~nce ~n
some sense is an arbitrary one. Both belong together to an int~rtextual traJectory
whose semiotic translation continues in the form of the creatlon of new and ever
differen t texts/ readers/ signs.
Fig.5
I.
In short, the narrative text demands a semiotic or intertextual completion precisely in terms of a readerwho will become as reader the translated, living Interpretant of the enunciative "you" and, as practitioner of the injunction, a translated, living Sign/lnterpretant of Luke's narrative, of Jesus' parable, of the
Deuteronomic law, one among many of the biblical intertextual trajectories.
The reader thus extends this semiotic trajectory by becoming a physical Sign/
89
20
For a more extended treatment of Derrida's and Foucault's importance for exegesis, cf. Phillips
1985 and Phillips 1990 where a portion of this argument is developed.
90
G. A. Phillips
reasons, in part - a 'text' that is henceforth no Ion ger a finished corpus of writing, some content
enclosed in a book or its margins, but a differential network, a fabric of traces referring endlessly
to something other than itself, to other differential traces. Thus the text overruns all the limits
assigned to it so far (not submerging or drowning them in an undifferentiated homogeneity, but
rather making them more complex, dividing and multiplying strokes and lines) - all the limits,
everything that was to be set up in opposition to writing (speech, life, the world, the real, history,
and what not, every field of reference - to body or mind, conscious or unconscious, politics,
economics, and so forth).21
U sing the notion of textuality as a conceptual wedge, Derrida seeks to pry apart
and thereby bring to light the underlayment of the western metaphysical system
as it operates within the primary literary and philosophical texts of the West. As
a means for implementing this foundational reflection, Derrida turns to the
question of boundaries. Boundary, like intertextuality, serves as a trope enabling hirn to speak of differance; its use represents a strategic rhetorical move
which enables hirn to disclose the prevailing set of positivist assumptions that
operate in and through such expressions such as "that which lies outside of the
text," the "referential realm outside of the text," or in his words "the opposition
to writing (speech, life, the world, the real, history ... every field of reference),"
distinctions which are weighty for the modern textual (including biblical) critic.
Derrida makes the outlandish claim that the text overruns everything established as a limit to its working, be that limit defined in tradition al terms as the
textual corpus, the reader's intended meaning, or even the historical context
itself. Derrida attempts to defamiliarize the "natural" distinction between the
textual and the extratextual; his aim is to compel reflection upon the taken-forgrantedness of the boundary conditions and their relationship to the various
"analytico-referential" interpretiive strategies used to read texts today (Reiss
1982,21-55). These are the very boundary conditions and interpretive methods
which undergird modern biblical exegesis and inform its critical purpose.
At one level Derrida's concern is obviously not to deny the reality of or to
diminish the need for the other-than-text, i.e. the extra-textual; on his own
grounds the logic of "difference" demands "an other." Still, "11 n'y a pas de horstexte" can be taken as a provocative statement meaning just that. Rather, his
effort is to direct slumbering attention to the border and the fact of the border as
a way of lifting a corner of the camouflage so as to draw attention to the natural,
unreflected-upon distinction that allows the modern critic to so neatly separate
text from context from reader from the extratextual and to discover the "truth"
of the text, i.e. its meaning, its referent, its world-of-meaning, etc. The question
Derrida poses to the biblical critic here is: What does the status of the boundary
or border imply for the grounding of the critical problem of description and
interpretation? What does it mean to consent to the distinction between text and
21 Derrida 1979, 83-84. This is an essay in two parts with both "essays" running continuously on
top and bottom of the same page. "Living On" refers to the top half; "Border Line" to the
bottom half.
91
extratext, i.e. between text and context, text and reader? What is the status and
significance of the difference and differentiation that is to be located here?
In raising the matter of borders in this fashion, Derrida is able to speak about
difference at a foundationallevel in a way that draws attention to the very status
of critical thought itself. The boundary that differentiates the text from the extratext ("speech, life, the world, the real") is a well-established and heavily
guarded border for the modern text critic. It is a given. Derrida's understanding
of intertextuality as the detour and deferral of signs, as a disseminating process,
challenges the biblical critic to reflect upon that boundary condition and the
difference it means for an understanding of the constructed nature of the critical
task when he asserts that "no border is guaranteed, inside or out" (Derrida 1979,
78) on its own grounds, but is authorized by some "external constraint;" all
borders and relationships are arbitrarily enforced and at the same time subject to
violation. Derrida does not seek to dismiss or dissolve boundaries (only to
"spoil" them), nor does he wish "to extend the reassuring notion of the text to a
whole extratextual realm and to trans form the world into a library by doing
away with all boundaries, all framework" (Derrida 1979, 84). This is to read his
concern in the wrong way. Rather, he problematizes the very notion of boundary and along with that the way textual critics habitually think about text, meaning, reader, context, his tory, and the critical task in order to engage critics in
thought about what in fact they do with texts. This is not an effort to do away
with this form of critical purpose, to free oneself from the modern critical
boundary condition altogether. For, he exposes the very need he has for these
borders in circumscribing his critical effort when he says, "I am here seeking
merely to establish the necessity of this whole problematic of judicial framing
and of the jurisdiction of frames" (Derrida 1979, 88). Derrida is not proposing
an escape either from frames or the modern critical problematic, but an angle of
reflection upon both that comes from attending to the differential quality of
signs and texts, upon differentiation itself.
From the perspective of the modern biblical critic, why should Derrida's view
of text understood in terms of difference and what it implies about the text's
relationship to the reader and the reader's critical task within his tory be so unsettling? In part it is because he does not honor traditionally established boundaries which distinguish, for example, between literary criticism and literary history, disciplinary boundaries which define the latter as a search for the cause,
origin, goal, purpose of a text, an approach predicated upon the positive separation of text from history, text from reader, text from context. More perturbing
still for the biblical critic is his persistent effort to force an accounting of the
investment in these boundaries. What is the personal, professional, conceptual,
ethical investment riding in the border configuration which characterizes modern critical thought? Thus, the very idea of borders as an enigma is a blow to the
critic for whom the methodological borders (e. g. the distinction between description and interpretation) are a given. There is considerable reluctance in
admitting that the borders which organize modern critical activity are imposed
92
G. A. Phillips
or that any formalist separation, say, of text from context, reader from text is
always an imposition (in the sense of "imponere"), which means a deceit, an
imposture: "It is always an external constraint that asserts a text in general [... ]"
(Derrida 1979, 171). For if this were so, then the ultima te purpose served by
modern exegetical practice is called into question. And for exegetes that means
the theological agenda of employing the text and the critical practice of the field
to sustain a certain metaphysical structure or foundation is problematized. The
danger of the deconstructive critique is feh acutely by the religionist and the
biblical critic whose attachment not only to the canonical text but also to those
modern methods prornotes and supports the theological agenda.
In this regard, the status of the reader and the reader's role in this process of
differentiation is no less problematized by attending to boundary distinctions
and no less a concern to the modern critic. Precluded from the start is an "ideal"
objective reader - a function of the modern critical myth - who exercises an
uninvested competence connecting text with text. Such a view implies a "right"
sort of reader and an identification of the "right" borders, permanent borders,
natural distinctions. Within the intertextual project scoped out by Derrida, the
reader, like the text, translates into a process, an activity of writing, textual dissemination. This activity is neither a reactionary contraction to the true borders
nor an anarchical overthrow of all those that prevail, simply a statement that "no
one inflexion enjoys an absolute privilege" (Derrida 1979, 78). In other words,
there is no eschatological reader who at some point in time and space will read
the text right, will critique the text without the possibility of another word, a
remainder. The activity of reading is not exempt from the inevitable play of
differentiation as well, which effeets the setting of the limits for the critical task.
One might conclude from this statement then that reading is a value-free activity a la Roland Barthes. Wt;re that the case the reader would be hardly more
than an occasion for penetrating and expanding the network of texts that make
up the literary intertextual chain, in service to some agenda "out there," borderless, transcendent, outside of the confines of boundaries and free of all foundations; subjectivity would be swallowed up and subordinated to an uhimate
privileged text and manner of interpretation. Instead, the critical reader must be
seen as a sign of a difference that escapes the borders that have traditionally
confined and distinguished author, referent, the context, the cause, etc. The
reader as subject is in important ways inseparable then from all texts, embedded
in the disseminating flow of meaning. From Derrida's perspective, intertextuality is ~ useful concept for dramatizing the force of difference that plays throughout hiStory, thoughout the text, throughout the reading, throughout thinking.
Thus, we are brought to see in Derrida's notions of textuality and intertextuality
that text, context, reader, thought are not isolable entities within an historical
flow of texts and events to be explained simply in terms of cause/ effect, and the
like, but are foremost effects of differentiation.
93
ongmates m the hlst?r~cal fleld of predecessors. Its own play of differences mirrors its displacement and reappropnauon of other texts, and anticipates the necessary critical text which must
'supplement' it [ ... J. (Riddel1979, 249)
Every. te:ct is to ?e vie.wed as always already bound up within a systemic differentIatmg relatlOnshlp with other texts, readings, readers, woven in Peirce's
terms as sign to sign. One text defers, differs from, is differentiated from
~no.t~er. I~ ~-iewing every text as a supplement, as writing, as sign, the reader's
mdlvlduahzmg, authorizing voice disappears in favor of the effects of difference
and t~e process of differentiation itself only to emerge in the guise of the new
text, slgn, commentary, writing. That being so, the critical task is not a search for
an Ur-text or originary meaning that has founded all others but a demonstration
of disco~nections, of resi~~al texts present by negative implication, by differences m, not commonahtIes of, source or intention. Criticism is an act that
prom~tes discontinuities rather than continuities. This means, of course, at the
same time, that textual criticism is by necessity to be measured by aseries of gaps
that can be found and that it effectively creates between text and text, text and
reader.
Thus, i.magining a crit~~al deco~structive response to Luke's Samaritan parable a~d dlSC?UrSe, the c~ltlcal readmg that attends seriously to Derrida' s understandmg of mtertextuahty as a celebration of difference will want to reflect both
up?n the semiotic linkages that are established within the intertextual trajectory
as ItS operates and upon the fact of the distinctions that can be drawn between
one thing an~ .another. I~ is less important from the deconstructive point of view
that the cn~lc .aPRreclate the fact of the connections between parable,
~eutero~o~lc cltatlOn and encompassing narration here than appreciate the
dlfferentlatmg process that allows each to have its relationship to the other.
Further, t~e exeg~te is to see that the very status of the modern critical apparatus
that p~rmltte~ h~m/her to make this discerning observation is subject to the
same dlfferentIatmg forces. What should be of interest is the fact that the critical
task can be reconstituted differently in different ages, with different questions
and purposes and outcomes.
. A work of l~terature and its reading from this perspective is better seen as an
mt~rplay - t~ mvoke Barthes once again, a tissue, an interweaving, texture - in
w~lch there IS always the possibility of finding and establishing a relationship
~lth some ?~her text~ so~e other reader, some other critical method and point of
vlew .. A cntIcal readmg IS always a gap to be filled momentarily but never exhaustIvely? always more read~ng activity to take pi ace, always room for one
~ore readll~g/r~a.der. What thlS means for a literary criticism of the biblical text
IS a short-ClrcUltmg of the search for the one meaning, the one sign, the one
stable mental content, the one voice, the ideal entity, the final interpretant that
one seeks to make present by invoking the proper method and technical her-
94
G. A. Phillips
meneutic, in other words the authoritative dlvine reader who stands outside of
history because he/she stands outside of the differentiating process that is intertextuality. That texts are understood to camouflage a meaning only later to be
reconstructed through a positive interpretation is a traditional view that has
forgotten its own literary critical and theological boundary conditions, has forgotten difference. But if we view criticism, along with Derrida, as continuous
acts of dissemination, dispersion, spreading out, as functions of attention to
differentiation, interspersed through the myriad play of difference both within
the text and between texts, within and between readers, the critical task is redefined so as to engage in an effort at displaying the boundaries/limits/ conditions/
differences that join and disjoin texts and readers and the critical praxes from one
another in the unending process of differentiation. The critical task is to uncover
discontinuities not continuities, differences not identities.
"Il n'y a pas de hors-texte." One could read this as a denial of the external
world and of history, but only if it were removed from its intertextual relationship with what Derrida has said elsewhere about the reader's critical responsibility to the text and to his/her modern critical condition. There is no trumpet blast
calling retreat from historico-critical methodologies or theological reflection to
some truer critical position. Rather, if anything, Derrida affirms the impossibility of escape to any form of transcendence either from the Western tradition
itself or the play of differentiation, from textuality, from criticism. We cannot
do with texts and readers and critical method what Kant wanted but failed to do
with philosophy, namely to make it a science of self-knowledge that effectively
enables it to get outside of our forms of representation to some high ground of
apodicticity where we can deteqp.ine the truth about the text, its meaning and
context, or the reader and his(her intentionality, the ultimate critical purpose.
There is no respite or escape from the process of differentiation. Not for the text,
the reader or the critical task. "
We can conclude by saying that Peirce's understanding of the process of semiosis and Derrida's meditation on differance offers much to the biblical critic
whose involvement with texts and their intertextual relations hip demand
theoretical footing. From Peirce's perspective, intertextual phenomena are amply explained in terms of an indefatigable, generative process. Critics who seek
to understand and explain the ways in which multiple texts and traditions of
textual interpretation intetJ.ct can benefit from his semiotic modeling; indeed we
saw in the brief reading of the Lukan narrative the possibilities that this theoretical framework opens up.
From Derrida's perspective, the disseminating quality of textuality calls for
biblical critics not only to comprehend the texts that they seek to explain and
interpret in terms of the discrete methodological framework that operates when
they read; but also to extend that process of differentiation to the depths in order
to ask what it is about the character of the critical effort itself that can be accounted for in precisely the same terms. Derrida's deconstructive understanding
of the intertextual process "simply" extends logically and radically that basic
95
insight of Peirce's regarding the semiotic status of human beings to bring under
the light the foundation of the critic's very own praxis. It is a difficult word for
the modern critic to hear, for Derrida compels the critic to come to grips with
the apparently hopeless effort to search for some fundament of truth, meaning,
language or subject that stands apart from the differentiating process. Concretely, Derrida's claim means that there can be neither escape from the Western
tradition and its boundaries nor an ignoring of these borders, only an overrunning of the limits. It is those limits which frustrate the critic, but only if there is
the illusion that one can somehow gain control of the text and its generative,
intertextual trajectory.
Bibliography
Almeida, Ivan
1976
"Operativite semantique des recits - paraboles: Semiotique narrative et textuelle:
Hermeneutique du discours religieux." Diss. Universite Catholique de Louvain.
Bal,Mieke
1987
Lethai Love: Feminist Literary Readings 0/ Biblical Love Stories. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
1988
Murder and Dif/erence: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death.
Bloomington: Indiana UP.
1991
On Story-Telling. Ed. DavidJobling. Sonoma: Polebridge Press.
Barthes, Roland
1981
"Theory of the Text." In Robert Young, ed. Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist
Reader. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 31-48.
Benoist, J ean-Marie
1975
La revolution structurale. Paris: Bernard Grasset.
Benveniste, Emile
1970
"L'appareil formel de l'enonciation." Langages 17, 12-18.
Burnett, Fred W.
1988
"Exposing the Implied Author in Matthew: The Characterization of God as Father."
Paper presented to the Literary Aspects 0/ the Gospels and Acts Group, The Society 0/
Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, November 19-22.
1990
"Postmodern Biblical Exegesis: The Eve ofHistorical Criticism." Semeia 52, 51-80.
Cross an, J ohn Dominic
1974
"The Good Samaritan: Towards a Generic Definition ofParable." Semeia 2,82-112.
Derrida, J acques
1972
"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourses of the Human Sciences." In Richard
Macksey/Eugenio Donato, eds. The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages 0/
Criticism and the Sciences 0/ Man. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Up, 247-265.
1977
"Signature Event Context." Glyph 1,172-97.
1979
"Living On: Border Line." In Harold Bloom et al. Deconstruction and Criticism.
New York: Seabury, 75-176.
Foucault, Michel
1972
Archeology 0/ Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Tr. M. Meridan Smith.
New York: Pantheon.
Frei, Hans
1974
The Eclipse 0/ Biblical Narrative: A Study 0/ Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale UP.
96
G. A. Phillips
Frye, Northrop
1973
Anatomy o[Criticism. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Greimas, A. J.lJ. Courtes
1982
Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. Tr. Larry Crist/Daniel Pattel
Gary Phillips et al. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Jakobson, Roman
1971 a
"Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb." In Selected Writings. Vol. 2:
Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 130-147.
1971 b
"Results of a Joint Conference of Anthropologists and Linguists." In Selected Writings. Vol. 2: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 554-567.
Kuhn, Thomas
1981
The Structure o[ Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd
ed.
LaCapra, Dominick
1983
Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Leitch, Vincent
1983
Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction. New York: Columbia UP.
Liszka, Jakob
1981
"Peirce and Jakobson: Toward a Structuralist Reconstruction of Peirce." Transactions o[ the Charles S. Peirce Society 17,55-72.
Morris, Charles
1964
Signification and Significance: A Study o[ the Relations o[ Signs and Values. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Patte, Daniel
"An Analysis ofNarrative Structure and the Good Samaritan." Semeia 2, 1-26.
1974
What Is Structural Exegesis? Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series.
1974
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
ed. Semiology and Parables: An Exploration o[ the Possibilities O[[ered by Structur1975
alism [or Exegesis. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, 9. Pittsburgh: Pickwiek Press.
Peirce, Charles Sanders
1931-1958 Collected Papers. Ed.ICharles Hartshorne/Paul Weiss. 5 vols. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard UP.
Phillips, Gary A.
1982
"Enunciation and the Kingdom ofHeaven: Text, Narration and Hermeneutic in the
Parables of Matthew 13." Diss. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
1985
"History and Text: The Reader in Context in Matthew's Parables Discourse."
Semeia 32,111-138.
1986
"Text and Enunciation as Interpretant: .A Peircian Contribution to Textual Semiotics." In H. Parret/H. G. Ruprecht, eds. Exigences et Perspectives de la Semiotiquel
Semiotics- Critical Process and New Perspectives: Recueil d'hommage po ur Algirdas
Julien Greimas. Brussels: Benjamin, 193-204.
1988
"The Authority of Exegesis and the Responsibility of the Critic: The Ethic and Ethos
of Criticism." Paper delivered to the Structuralism and Exegesis Section of the Society of Biblical LiteraturelAmerican Academy of Religion, Chicago, Illinois,
November 18-22, 1988.
1990
"Exegesis as Critical Praxis: Reclaiming History and Text from a Postmodern Perspective." Semeia 51, 7-49
1992
Biblical Exegesis in a Postmodern Age. Philadelphia: Fortress Press (forthcoming).
Reiss, Timothy
1982
Discourse o[ Modernism. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
97
Ricoeur, Paul
1971
"What is a Text? Explanation and Interpretation." In David Rasmussen, ed. MythicSymbolic Language and PhilosophicalAnthropology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,
135-150.
Riddel, J oseph
1979
"From Heidegger to Derrida to Chance: Doubling and (Poetic) Language." In William Spanos, ed. Martin Heideggerand the Question o[ Literature. Baltimore:Johns
Hopkins UP.
Ringgren, Helmer
1966
"Literarkritik, Formgeschichte, berlieferungsgeschichte : Erwgungen zur
Methodenfrage der alttestamentlichen Exegese." Theologische Literaturzeitung 91,
641-650.
Semeia
1985
"Reader Response Approaches to Biblical and Secular Texts" [special issue J.
Semeia
1990
"Poststructural Criticism and the Bible: Text/History/Discourse" [special issueJ.
van Tilborg, Sejf
1986
The Sermon on the Mount as an I deological Intervention: A Reconstruction o[ M eaning. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
I'
:
WOLFGANG G. MLLER
In terfigurality
A Study .on the Interdependence f Literary Figures
1. I ntroduction
I.
I
I
In his surrealistic nvel Il Visconte dimezzato (The Cloven Viscount, 1952) Ital.o
Calvin teIls the story f the Italian Viscunt Medard wh, having been hit by
a cannn ball in the Turkish wars, returns, with nly ne half f his bdy preserved (the right eye, the right ear and s frth dwn t the right leg) to his castle,
where his ghastly appearance and his reign f terrr hrrify all the peple. This
grtesque figure seems t be abslutely unique, withut precedent in earlier
literature, until in the seventh f the bk's ten chapters, the secnd half f the
Viscunt returns, miraculusly preserved, t the castle after a lng pilgrimage,
turning .out t be in all mental and mral respects the .oppsite f the first half.
After this effectively delayed return everything falls int.o place. The reader
realizes that this nvel belngs t the "dualistic Internatinal" (Miller 1985,
127).It is an .original fictinal re-frmulatin f the theme f the divided sul, an
ingenius variatin f such pairs f figures as Rbert Luis Stevensn's Dr
Jekyll and Mr Hydein the tale f that name (1886). What seemed t be a ttally
singular figure at first sight, independent f ther fictinal characters and
character cnstellatins, prves t be part f a netwrk .of relati.onships that exist
between literary characters f different authrs and ages.
The interrelatins that exist between characters f different texts represent
ne f the mst imprtant dimensins f intertextuality, as the fllwing randmly chsen titles may indicate: Troilus and Cressida (Shakespeare), The
Female Quixote (Lennx), Grandison der Zweite (Musus), Faust (Gethe),
Don Juan und Faust (Grabbe), Verter (Lazarevic), Ulysses Oyce), Dr. Faustus
(Th. Mann), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (St.oppard), Grendel
(Gardner). In view f the prminence and imprtance f such relatins it is
astnishing hw little attentin they have fund s far in intertextual thery and
criticism. One reasn fr this lacuna may be the suspicin generally felt towards
character-riented studies, character being, as J.onathan Culler has said, regarded by mdern thereticians as an "idelgical prejudice" rather than a respectable topic fr inquiry (Culler 1975, 230; Jeffersn 1980, 235). T.o bviate
such reservatins we will, in this study, lk at character as a strictly structural
and functinal textual element and apply t it fr the mst part the "o/rd "fig-
102
W. G. Mller
ure" which is ideologically less suspicious. A second and perhaps more important reason for the scarcity of work on the interrelation between literary characters is the absence of a critical term for this aspect of intertextuality, which gap is
to be filled here by the neologism interfigurality. The introduction of a new
word, and a hard one at that, may be frowned upon in a time of terminological
inflation - John Hollander speaks of caconyms (Plottel/Charney 1978, xiv)-,
but in this case a new term is necessary, because without it important aspects and
problems of intertextuality would not come into view.
There are some studies that refer to or imply interfigural phenomena, but they
usually are very limited in scope, isolating individual aspects of interfigurality.
Thus, studies dealing with the figure of the reader in literature - the stock
character of the "reading protagonist" - tend to include in their discussions a
special type of interfigurality, which manifests itself in a fictional character's
imitation of, or identification with, a character from another literary work
(Pabst 1975; Wuthenow 1980; Goetsch 1983; Kleinert 1983; Stckrath 1984). A
similar approach is taken in arecent collection of essays devoted to a motif its
contributors call Gelebte Literatur in der Literatur (Wolpers 1986), a volume
wh ich does not use the terminology of intertextual criticism for the most part, but
provides, from Cervantes' Don Quixote to Plenzdorf's Die neuen Leiden des
jungen w., penetrating analyses of texts which are relevant to a discussion of
interfigurality. A special form of interfigurality is discussed by Theodore Ziolkowski (1983), namely the transfer of a figure from one fictional work to another
fictional work, for which phenomenon he coins the term figures on loan.
In the following we will try to formulate prolegomena to a systematic description of the whole range of interfigural phenomena. Our survey does not attempt
to be exhaustive, but it will map some of the most important coordinates in this
field of intertextuality and isolate and discuss a few essential types of interfigurality and thus lay the foundatin for a more complete and systematic study of
the subject and for more detailed examinations of individual kinds and instances
of interfigural relations. As far as documentation by concrete examples is concerned, our approach will, of necessity, be comparative. Just as authors, in their
references to figures from other texts, constantly pass over the boundaries of
different literatures, so theoreticians and critics focusing on interfigural relations cannot limit their material to instances from one literature only. The topic
of intertextuality is comparative by nature, offering rich theoretical and practical
possibilities for comparative literature as a discipline of literary studies that is
still seeking to define its object and method convincingly.
Names belong to the most obvious devices of relating figures of different literary
texts. Interfigural relations are to a large exten t internymic - yet anoth,er -ne01Q-:.
gism - relations. The shift of the name of a fictional" character, whether in its
Interfigurality
103
identical or in a changed form, to a figure in another text is, as far as the linguistic
aspect is concerned, comparable to a quotation. ne could almost speak of a
quoted name, which we hesitate to do for reasons to be seen later. Like a quotation a re-used name "repeats a segment derived from apretext within a subsequent text" (Plett 1986, 295), and just as in a quotation the segment taken over
from the anterior text is frequently subjected to alteration or transformation in
the posterior text, so a name from an earlier text often recurs in a changed form
in a subsequent text, the alteration being, as in a quotation, not only a matter of
form (or surface structure) but of content (or deep structure), too. Another
affinity is to be mentioned. Just as in a quotation the transfer of a segment from
one text to another one usually causes "a conflict between the quotation and its
new context" (Plett 1986, 300), so the shift of the name of a literary character to a
new fictional context is bound to create tension or conflict.
The analogy between quotation and re-used names should not be overemphasized, however, since names are in literature allied to characters, the latter
representing a category of its own. A literary character can be defined as a coherent bundle of qualities (character traits), and the name given to a character is its
identifying onomastic label. There is, however, not a necessary relations hip between signifier and signified in literary names. Names like Emma Woodhouse
Gane Austen, Emma), Lily Briscoe (Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse), and
Holden Caulfield G. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye) hardly tell us anything
about the characters they are attached to. But there are a great many possibilities
of investing names of literary figures with meaning, and authors have been
highly inventive in doing so. One of the most prominent meaning-generating
devices in literary name-giving is the linking of the name of a literary figure to
the name of an earlier literary figure. Identity or partial identity (similarity) of
names from different literary works is always an interfigural element, although
interfigurality may work out in very different forms in the individual cases. The
re-emergence of a name from an earlier work may express an affinity with the
figure thus evoked, as is the case with the parson in Laurence Sterne's Tristram
Shandy who is named Yorick after the king's jester in Shakespeare'sHamlet and
whose name reappears as Sterne's pseudonym inA SentimentalJourney. In extreme instances such a re-used name may coincide with the identity or, rather,
near-identity of the figures related internymically. A well-known example is the
appearance of Pamela, the heroine of Richardson's epistolary novel Pamela, in
Fielding's Joseph Andrews. A grotesque example illustrating the opposite case,
i. e. the identity of the name coinciding with the strongest contrast of the figures
thus related, is the rat called Desdemona which the protagonist carries with hirn
as his pet animal in Robert Nye's would-be Rabelaisian re-write of the story of
Falstaff (Falstaff, 1976).
As was said above, the clearest interfigural reference is contributed by the
identity of the names of the figures related. Let us begin our discussion of concrete examples, which will try to combine structural and functional analysis,
with a rather complex case. In Kierkegaard's Diary of the Seducer the protago-
104
W. G. Mller
nist's first name Johannes refers to two great literary figures, Don Juan and
Doktor Johannes Faust, who are earlier in Either-Or (Enten-Eller, 1943), of
which the Diary is apart, contras ted as the sensual and the reflective varieties of
the demonic. This interfigural reference, which is constituted by the identity of
the Christian names (see Pau11986, 207), is reinforced in the Diary itself by a
number of allusions of which those to Goethe's Faust are more frequent. Now
Kierkegaard's Johannes cannot be simply interpreted as an amalgamation of
Don Juan and Faust. Faust is obviously a model for Johannes, whereas in the
latter's relation to Don Juan similarity and dissimilarity are mingled. That it
would be wrong to characterize Don Juan merely as an antipode to Johannes is
shown by another interfigural element. Johannes' servant, the analogue to Don
Juan's servant Leporello, bears the same name Gohannes) as his master in The
Diary of the Sedueer. This identity of the names suggests the absolute dedication
of the servant to his master's concerns, whieh Kierkegaard notes as a characteristic of the relationship between Don Juan and Leporello. To sum up, internymic
identity provides the reader of Kierkegaard's portrait of the seducer as an aesthetician with a hint at the intricate relationship of the protagonist to two earlier
literary figures.
Names extricated from one fictional eontext and inserted into another one are
often changed and this kind of interfigural deviation can, as is the case with
quotations, be "deseribed in terms of transformations" (Plett 1986,296). One
such procedure is subtraction, for instanee in the form of back-clipping. In Poe' s
The Fall of the House of Usher the I-narrator reads the fictitious medieval rmance The Mad Trist to his neurotic host immediately before the tale's eatastrophe. The clipping of the last .. syllable turns the name Tristram from the
medievallove epic of Tristraml and Isoud into Trist, a proeedure whieh evokes
the French word triste and points, together with the adjective mad, to the emotional state of the story's protagonist.
Back-clipping is also used to give names a distinctly modern English or
American touch. If diminutive suffixes are added, this procedure can also be
defined as substitution. This is the case in Ulrich Plenzdorf's novel and play Die
neuen Leiden des jungen W. (1972), where the name Charlotte is changed to
Charlie, whereas in Goethe's Werther the shortened version of the name, Lotte,
is produced by fore-clipping. An analogous transformation occurs in Horst
Krger's extension of Hlderlin's Bildungsroman Hyperion (Hrtling 1971,
49 - 51 ). Hyperion, now a male prostitu te in Berlin, beeomes H ypi, and Diotima,
now his wife, Didi. Similarly, in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard gives the names of the play's protagonists a modern ring by back-clipping,
which results in Ros and Guil.
Less frequent than subtraction is addition as an internymic deviation. In
Fielding's joseph Andrews Mr. B. from Riehardson's Pamela returns as Mr.
Booby, the extension or completion of the name having a distinctly parodie
effect (booby = silly dull-witted fool). A more complicated case is the name of
the heroine of Erica Jong's mock eighteenth-century novel Fanny Being the
I'
Interfigurality
105
106
W. G. Mller
Interfigurality
There ist a great wealth of types of internymic relation~, which is ,to. be illustrated by a few more instances. The first comes from Juh~~ ~arnes. fme book
Flaubert's Parrot (1984), which is novel, biography, and cntlClSm all m one. The
surprise effect of its conclusion derives to a great exte~t from the disc.losure that
the narrator's attraction to Flaubert's life and work IS connected wlth the fact
that his wife is, like the heroine of Madame Bovary, an adulteress and that his
attitude towards her is analogous to that of Flaubert's fictional character Charles
Bovary. Now Barnes gives several hints at this intertextua~ relation betw~en the
story of his protagonist and that of Flaubert' s novel, for mstance that hIS n~r
rator is like Charles Bovary, a doctor, or the narrator' s remark that three stones
contend within hirn: "One about Flaubert, one ab out Ellen, one about myself."
(85-86). One of these hints is of an internymic character. The n~me o~ the narrator's wife is Ellen Braithwaite, which is related, through the Identlty of the
initial sounds, to that of Emma Bovary. A slight similarity of the names of the
two characters is here used as a subde interfigural device which will not evade
the perceptive reader. With a stronger internymic signal Barnes would have
given the show away.
. .
A significant interfigural criterion can be the omISSIon of the name of a character referred to intertextually. In John Gardner's re-write of Beowulf (Grendel,
1972) the viewpoint is shifted to Grendel, the novel's I-narrator, wh~ aposwas G:endel, Rumer of
trophizes hirnself by his name several times Meadhalls, Wrecker of Kings!" (69) -, whereas hIS antagomst, Beowulf, who
appears not until the last but one chapter, is called "the stran?er" and r;tever
mentioned by name. The namelessness of the hero, whose name IS so promment
in the Old English epic, indicat~s the radically new figural orientation of the
modern version. Incidentally~ it is interesting to note that in Jean Rhys' Wide
Sargasso Sea, which supplies the antecedents of the relationship between
Rochester and his first wife ih Charlotte Brond;'s Jane Eyre, the name of the
male protagonist is never referred to. This is an important structural detail which
will be discussed in another context in this study.
Let us, finally, mention two more internymic devices. The first is the ~efer
ence to a figure from the pre-text in the tide of the subsequent work (m t~e
paratext, in Genette's terminology), while the character bears another name m
the work itself: Doktor FaustuslAdrian Leverkhn (Thomas Mann), Pygmalion/Henry Higgins (George Bernard Shaw). This procedure is possible at the
level of the work's chapters, too. In its serialized first publication in the Little
Review Joyce confirmed the interfigural relation indicated in the tide of Ulysses
in several of the work's chapter tides: Telemach~ Nestor, Proteus, Calypso etc.
. ' .
(Genette 1982,355).
The second internymic device to be mentioned here IS a very old one WhlCh IS
no longer popular in modern literature. It is a variety of the rhetorical trope ~f
antonomasia, in which a proper name is replaced by another proper name that IS
generalized to a common noun. Thus in the foll?wing quotation f~om a Ger~a~
eighteenth-century satire on Richardson's Szr Charles Grandzson, Musaus
:'1
107
Grandison der Zweite, the characters of the satirized text are evoked by aseries
of instances of antonomasia, which are given in italics here: "[ ... ] unser Grandison scheint in seine Byron zum Sterben verliebt zu seyn, und gb alle Clementinen und Henrietten um eine Julie hin." (Musus 1800, n.81). Usually, however,
antonomasia establispes a looser relation to a figure from apre-text. An extreme
example would be Robert Nye's strongly intertextual novelFalstaff(Neumeier
1988), which makes abundant interfigural references to Shakespeare's works
without aiming at a tight structural pattern. This is shown in the names of the
many lovers Sir Falstaff has in the book: Ophelia, Imogen, Juliet, Perdita,
Titania, Beatrice etc. The same looseness of the interfigural references is to be
found in Nye's use of antonomasia. Here is an example from one of the book's
many sex scenes: "She was his Juliet. He her Romeo. She was his Cressida. He
her Troilus. She was his Cleopatra. He her Antony [ ... ]" (Nye 1976,335).
108
W. G. Mller
"borrowed figures" , the appearance of Goethe's Wilhelm Meister in the German romantic novel Karl's Trials and Tribulations (Die Versuche und Hindernisse Karls, 1808) and the appearance of Richardson's Pamela in Fielding's
Joseph Andrews (1742), Ziolkowski notes that "we are amused because the figure on loan deviates so greatly from our expectations" (Ziolkowski 1983, 133).
A glance at a relevant passage fromJoseph Andrews can make it quite clear that
the Pamela of Richardson's and that of Fielding's novel are not at all identical.
The quotation comes from the scene in which Pamela tries to dissuade her
brother from marrying his beloved Fanny because of the latter's low social rank:
'Brother' said Pamela, 'Mr. Booby advises you as a Friend; and, no doubt, my Papa and Mamma
will be of his Opinion, and will have great reason to be angry with you for destroying what his
Goodness hath done, and throwing down your Family again, after he hath raised it. It would
become you better, Brother, to pray for the Assistance of Grace against such a Passion than to
indulge in it.' - 'Sure, Si ster, you are not in earnest; I am sure she is your Equal, at least.' - 'She
was my Equal,' answered Pamela, 'but I am no longer Pamela Andrews; I am now this Gentleman's Lady, and as such am above her - I hope I shall never behave with an unbecoming Pride;
but at the same time I shall always endeavour to know mys elf, and question not the Assistance of
Grace to that purpose.' (Book IV, Chapter 7)
If name and language are identifying criteria, Fielding's Pamela is not the same as
Richardson's original figure. The simple fact that Pamela appears inJoseph Andrews not as Lady B. but as Lady Booby makes her another figure, and her
language may look deceptively like that of Richardson' s heroine, but differences
are unmistakable. Thus Fielding's Pamela uses the pious vocabulary and the
moralizing tone of her model, but the underlying attitude is that of entirely unChristian pride and pretentiousness. The discrepancy between Pamela's show of
piety and her declared solicitude for her brother on the one hand and her base
and calculating attitude on the other mark her as a hypocrite. Fielding's Pamela
is a parodic version of the original, which can be proved by further linguistic
details such as the use of the diminutive terms of endearment "Papa" and
"Mamma" (Richardson's heroine usually refers to her parents as "Father" and
"Mother").
Fielding's figure is a replica of Richardson's with parodic deviations meant to
undermine the original. These deviations are not very conspicuous since Fielding does not want the reader to realize immediately that what is presented to hirn
here is not the real Pamela. The pretended identity of Fielding's with Richardson's Pamela is a fiction in the service of parody. Purporting to take over into his
own novel a figure from his great riyal in the art of the novel, Fielding presents
his own view of that figure which satirizes Richardson's conception. A comparison of Fielding's Shamela with his Joseph Andrews is revealing in this respect.
While Shamela is from first to last explicitly a parody of Richardson's novel, its
protagonist being by name already a parodic version of Richardson's heroine,
Joseph Andrews is a novel with only a subsidiary parodic dimension, a novel
which builds up its own fictional world, yet introduces with Pamela a figure
which seems to be taken straight from another fictional context. Fielding's
Interfigurality
109
Henry Brocken perceives in this encounter not really the literary revenant ".not her words, not even her thoughts" - nor is the woman he sees the original
flgure from Bronte's novel - who was in the revenant's words, "detestable",
"stu bb orr~,
"" Wllfu,
1" "d emented "
" -, b ut t h e essenua
. 1 ch aracter 0 f J ane
, "
vam
Eyre, the ldea of her. What de la Mare does in this airy book is constantly to test
and counterpoint alternative conceptions of traditionalliterary figures. In the
course of the novel the deviations of the literary revenants from their originals
become ever more striking, and a profound re-exploration of some of the bestknown figures from English literature, for example from Swift's Gulliver's
Travels and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, is achieved.
110
W. G. Mller
Interfigurality
111
course, acceptable from an intertextual viewpoint. Wide Sargasso Sea is so designed as to make the reader shuttle back and forth between the sequel and its
pre-text. As far as the male protagonist is concerned, the reader will, by going
back to Jane Eyre and returning to Wide Sargasso Sea again, be all the more
struck by his namelessness in the sequel, a fact that distances hirn from his counterpart in the source. That is why it runs counter to Rhys' artistic intention to
call her male protagonist Rochester or Edward. This figure's lack of a name as an
identifying mark must be taken seriously; it calls his identity into doubt and
impairs hirn as aperson.
Similarly intricate is the naming of the fern ale protagonist in Rhys' novel. For
her the authoress invents a new name, Antoinette Cosway. After her marriage
her husband not only takes all her money, he also insists on her accepting
"Bertha" as her first name, an act of male possessiveness which "strips her of her
individual essence" (Nebeker 1981, 159). Antoinette protests against this renaming: "Bertha is not my name. You are trying to make me into someone else,
calling me by another name." (Rhys 1987, 121). She feels that by naming, which
is, as we know, a magic act of taking possession (Porter 1976, 550), he is robbing
her of her individuality. Clear-sighted in her lunacy, she nostalgically laments,
later in the novel, the loss of her former self which coincided with the loss of her
name: "Names matter, like when he wouldn't call me Antoinette, and I saw
Antoinette drifting out of the window with her scents, her pretty clothes and her
looking-glass." (Rhys 1987, 147). This act of re-naming puts her on the way of
becoming the "Bertha Mason" of Jane Eyre. In Bronte's novel Rochester declares in the crucial scene of the discovery of his first marriage, "I now inform
you that she is my wife, whom I married fifteen years ago - Bertha Mason by
name" (Bronte 1966, 320).
This is not yet the end of J ean Rhys' subtle internymic references. At one place
inJane Eyre - in the solicitor's public declaration during the marriage ceremony
- the full name of Rochester's first wife is given: "Bertha Antoinetta Mason."
(Bronte 1966, 318). Hence we see that the first name of Rhys' heroine is also
derived from the pre-text, the authoress giving, however, a F rench flavour to the
name by substituting the suffix - ette for the ending - etta. Now Antoinette's
husband also tampers with this name. He robs it of its French ending - thus,
unwittingly of course, restoring the original name as it appears inJane Eyreand associates it with a name rhyming with it, "Marionette" I"Marionetta", thus
onomastically emphasizing the doll-like role (marionette = a puppet moved by
strings) he forces onto her. In a quotation of his thoughts the development this
name undergoes at his hands is summarized, "Marionette, Antoinette,
Marionetta, Antoinetta" (Rhys 1987, 127).
It is true that Rhys allows her male protagonist to express his viewpoint as an
I -narrator in a large section of the novel and that she presents hirn as a victim of
his social and economic background and of the cultural and racial tensions and
conflicts inJamaica and, concretely as the dupe of an intriguer and deceiver, but
the way he systematically destroys the personality of his wife, shows hirn as a
112
W. G. Mller
male chauvinist, a representative of a patriarchal society which suppresses women and allows them only to exist in the role chosen for them by men. This
attitude is mirrored in the treatment of his wife's name. The novel delineates the
change of Antoinette Cosway into the "Bertha Mason" ofJane Eyre. Sargasso
Sea is a sequel that, as a modern work of art, exists in its own right; yet simultaneously it evinces intricate intertextual relations, with the novel's end actuaUy
dovetailing into its pre-text. Many of this work's intertextual devices are interfigural, and especially internymic, making the reader's attention constantly move
to and fro between the figures of the text and its pre-text. Wide Sargasso Sea
makes it quite clear that a critical approach absolutizing the derivative aspect of
interfigural relations in sequels is too limited.
I,
II
I
Interfigurality
113
different novels (for example J ames J oyce, Portrait oi the Artist as a Young Man,
Ulysses; Theodore Dreiser, Cowperwood-Trilogy; John Updike, Rabbit-Trilogy; Martin Wals er, Kristlein-Trilogy; Philip Roth, Zuckerman-Trilogy). A
unique work is in this respectJohn Barth's novel LETTERS, an ingenious play
with fact and fiction which recycles "Characters from the Author's Earlier Fictions" (Barth 1979, 190). The fictitious "author" actually writes letters to the
characters of B arth' s previous novels asking them for permission to re-use or, he
says, "reorchestrate" them. The "author" in LETTERS calls his intended work a
"Sequel" (Barth 1979,431), but it is singular among sequels in that it resurreets
figures "from each of my previous books" (Barth 1979, 431).
The identity of a figure of the pre-text with its namesake in the subsequent
text is evident, too, in continuations written to exploit a book's success. Examples would be Defoe's The Further Adventures oiRobinson Crusoe, Richardson's
Pamela, Part 11, or Dumas' continuations of Les Trois Mousquetaires, Vingt ans
apres and Le Vicomte de Bragelonne. Such potboilers or warmed-up versions of
successful books must be distinguished from the second parts of works of
world-literature like Cervantes' Don Quixote, Goethe's Faust or the same author's Wilhelm Meister, which deal with a later phase in a character's life and
manifest a greater artistic freedom or philosophical depth. In either case the
connecting link between the anterior and the posterior text is figural, as the
names of the works indicate already.
A celebrated classical example of a figure's reappearance in a subsequent text
by the same author is Homer's Odyssey, which describes the adventures of
Odysseus in the course of his return from the Trojan War to his wife Penelope in
Ithaca. Odysseus is in the latter work, of course, the same as in the pre-text, but
within the Odyssey as an aesthetic construction he is a new figure. While he was
only one of several outstanding warriors in the Iliad, the focus is now totally on
hirn as the protagonist, and he is no longer seen in the role of a warrior, but in
that of the central hero of a sequence of adventures which prefigures the genre of
the novel (Genette 1982,200) or, rather, romance.
Changes in a figure that reappears in an autographie sequel or a sequence or
series of an author's works may be due to a new intention or aesthetic vision of
the author's. Thus in Shakespeare's historical tetralogies, which cover a rather
coherent sequence of historical events from the end of the fourteenth to the end
of the fifteenth century, a number of characters are bound to reappear in the next
play or plays of the series. As historical figures such characters are always identical, of course, but from the viewpoint of the plays' aesthetic conception they
frequently change. To give an example, in 3 Henry VI Richard, Duke of
Gloucester, is a callous warrior, cynical, revengeful, ever willing to use his
sword, whereas in Riehard 111, the next play in the series, we never see hirn
soiling his hands with blood. In the latter play Shakespeare conceives hirn as a
villain-rhetorician, an accomplished simulator and dis simulator who perfectly
practises courtly role-playing in his attempt to implement devilish intrigues and
machinations. Another conspicuous change a character undergoes in the his-
114
w. G. Mller
tories is that ofPrince HaI (1,2 Henry IV) to King Henry V (Henry V). A rather
drastic interfigural deviation in Shakespeare's Roman Plays concerns Antony:
InJulius Caesar he appears in the role of Caesar's right hand and, later, in that of
the power politician and demagogue, whereas, in Antony and Cleopatra, he is
delineated as an eminent Roman warrior and statesman, who, in a kind of midlife crisis, loses hirns elf to the fascination of the Orient. To explain the figure's
different qualities in the two plays in terms of a development of the personality
would simplify matters. In the posterior play Shakespeare obviously conveys an
image of the figure different from that of the anterior play, an image which is
part of a new aesthetical design.
Interfigurali ty
115
116
W. G. Mller
Interfigurality
117
118
W. G. Mller
which gives way at its revelatory climax to truth, when the audience on stage is
shocked into realizing that the villain-murderer of the playlet, the Turkish
Bashaw, is in reality the avenger-murderer Hieronimo of the play proper. Intratextual interfigurality offers enormous possibilities for the representation of
the relation between fact and fiction, an aesthetic potential that is exploited by
postmodernist works, as can here be illustrated only by two examples. The first
is Max Frisch's novel Mein Name sei Gantenbein (1964), whose leitmotif is the
formula "Ich stelle mir vor" ("I imagine"). The novel's narrator constantly tries
on stories like clothes ("Ich probiere Geschichten an wie Kleiderl") in which he
projects fictitious versions of his life that are related to figures identified by
names, among which those of Gantenbein and Enderlin stand out. Interfigurality is here realized in the counterpointing of alternative narrated vers ions of the
self. Such figural relationships are a new invention in the history of the novel,
although they are foreshadowed in earlier periods, for instance in Cervantes'
Don Quixote and some eighteenth-century novels (Musus, Neugebauer, Wieland). They are of a kind totally different from the relationships between the
figures of a literary work which are traditionally designated as the grouping or
the constellation of the characters (configuration). Intratextual interfigurality has
its origin in the intersection or interpenetration of different fictional contexts,
which in Frisch's novel results in an ingenious rope-walking between fact and
fiction.
An American novel which is strikingly similar to M ein Name sei Gantenbein
is Philip Roth's masterpiece The Counterlife (1986). It is necessary to give a
rough - and much simplified - outline of the plot. The novel begins as a rather
conventional narrative, telling the story of theJewish dentist Henry Zuckerman
who, on account of a heart disease, has to take medication that makes hirn sexually impotent, incapable, that is, of having intercourse with his wife and his
lover, his practice assistant Wendy. To recover his virility he undergoes a heart
operation of whose consequences he dies in the book's first part ("Basel"). In the
second part ("Judea") Roth dishes up the surprising information that Henry is
still alive, having left the life to which he seemed to cling so much and gone to
Israel where he joins a group of Zionist settlers. After five months his brother,
the writer N athan Zuckerman, follows hirn to Israel in order to make hirn return
to his family. In the fourth part - after a grotesque account of a failed hijacking
on Nathan's flight back - the reader is all of a sudden plunged into Roth's intricate play with fiction. We are told that Henry is not dead, that he does not live in
Israel and that he never had a heart disease. Everything turns out to be a fiction
invented by Nathan who transferred his own personal situation (the problem of
his heart disease and his attendant problems as a lover) to his brother. Wh at
Henry finds among his deceased brother' s papers in the fourth part are the
novel's first three parts, which mingle details of his own private life and his
brother's story. Among these papers there is also the book's last part ("Christendom") in which we learn that Nathan, too, is not dead, in fact trying to live a
bourgeois life with his former lover in England.
Interfigurality
119
Roth's play with fiction concerns, to a large extent, the identity of his characters. It is essentially of an interfigural nature. This can be illustrated by a passage
f~or:n the novel's fourth part, where Henry Zuckerman reads, to his dismay, the
fIctlOn Nathan made out of his brother's and his own lives. What he protests
against is the writer's exchange of names and identities.
Wh at is most disgusting, Henry thought, the greatest infringement and violation, is that this is
not.me, not in any way. I am not a dentist who seduces his assistants [ ... ] my job is getting my
patte.nts to trust me, m~king them comfortable, completing my work as painlessly and cheaply as
posslble for them, and Just as well as it can be done. What I do in my office is that. His Henry is, if
anyone, hirn - it's Nathan, using me to conceal himself while sirnultaneously disguising hirns elf
as hirns elf, as responsible, as sane, disguising hirns elf as a reasonable man while I arn revealed as
the absolute dope. (Roth 1988,258)
120
W. G. Mller
Bibliography
Barnes, Julian
1984
Flaubert's Parrot. London: Pan.
Barth,John
1979
Letters. New York: Putnam.
Borges, J orge Luis
1981
Labyrinths. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Broich, Ulrich/Manfred Pfister, eds.
1985
Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Broich, Ulrich
1985
"Formen der Markierung von Intertextualitt." In Broich/Pfister, eds., 31-47.
Bronte, Charlotte
1966
jane Eyre. Harmondsworth: Penguin (orig. 1847).
Cervantes, Miguel de
.
1988
The Adventures of Don Quixote. Tr. J. M. Cohen. Harmondsworth: PenguIn.
Culler, Jonathan
1975
Structuralist Poetics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
De la Mare, Walter
1904
Henry Brocken. His Travels andAdventures in the Rich, Strange, Scarce-Imaginable
Regions of Romance. London: W. Collins, Sons & Co.
Fielding, Henry
1970
The History of the Adventures of joseph Andrews. London/New YorkiToronto:
Oxford UP.
Gardner, John
1972
Grendel. New York: Ballantine.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La Litterature au second degre. Paris: Seuil.
Goetsch, Paul
1983
"Leserfiguren In deli Erzhlkunst." Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift 33,
199-215.
Hrtling, Peter, e d . '
.
1971
Leporello fllt aus der Rolle. Zeitgenssische Autoren erzhlen das Leben von Ftguren der Weltliteratur weiter. Frankfurt: S. Fischer.
Herget, Winfried
.
1986
"Joyce Carol Oates' Re-imaginationen." In Winfried Herget et al., eds. Theone und
Praxis im Erzhlen des 19. und 20. jahrhunderts. Studien zur englischen und
amerikanischen Literatur zu Ehren von Willi Erzgrber. Tbingen: G. Narr,
359-371.
J efferson, Ann
1980
"Intertextuality and the Poetics of Fiction." Comparative Criticism 2, 235-250.
Kleinert, Annemarie
1983
"Vorsicht Literatur! Eine literarische Lektion vom gefhrlichen Lesen." Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift 33,94-100.
Miller, Karl
1985
Doubles: Studies in Literary History. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Montandon, Alain
1982
Le lecteur et la lecture dans l'reuvre. Actes du Colloque International de ClermontFerrand. Clermont-Ferrand: Association des Publications de la Faculte des Lettres et
- Sciences Humaines de Clermont-Ferrand.
Musus, Johann Karl August
1800
Der deutsche Grandison. Leipzig: Sommer, 2nd ed.
Interfigurality
121
Nebeker, Helen
1981
Woman in Passage: A Critical Study of the Novels of jean Rhys. Montreal: Eden
Press Women's Publications.
Neurneier, Beate
1988
"Die Lust am Intertext: Robert Nyes Roman Falstaff" Jahrbuch der Deutschen
Shakespeare-Gesellschaft West, 150-162.
Nye, Robert
1976
Falstaff London: Hamilton.
Pabst, Walter
1949
"Frst Galeotto oder die Macht der erfundenen Werke." Deutsche Beitrge 3,
168-181.
1975
"CVictimes du livre'. Versuch ber eine literarische Konstante." In Jose M. Navarra,
ed. Filologia y Didactica Hispanica. Homenaje al Professor Hans-Karl Schneider.
Hamburg: Buske.
Paul, Fritz
1986
"Kierkegaards Verfhrer, Don Juan und Faust." In Wolpers, ed., 198-216.
Plett, Heinrich F.
1986
"The Poetics of Quotation." Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis:
Sectio Linguistica 17,293-313 (publ. 1988).
Plottel, Jeanine ParisieriHanna Charney
1978
Intert~xtuality: New Perspectives in Criticism. New York Literary Forum, 2. New
York: Literary Forum.
Porter, Dennis
1976
"Of Heroines and Victims: Jean Rhys andjane Eyre." Mass,!-chusetts Review 17,
540-552.
Priessnitz, Horst, ed.
1980
Anglo-amerikanische Shakespeare-Bearbeitungen des 20.]ahrhunderts. Ars Interpretandi, 9. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rhys,Jean
1987
Wide Sargasso Sea. Harmondsworth: Penguin (orig. 1966).
Roth, Philip
1988
The Counterlife. New York: Penguin (orig. 1986).
Stckrath, J rn
1984
"Der literarische Held als Leser." In Michael Krejci et al., eds. LiteraturSprache-Unterricht. Festschrift fr jakob Lehmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Bamberg:
Bayerische Verlagsanstalt.
Wolpers, Theodor, ed.
1986
Gelebte Literatur in der Literatur. Studien zu Erscheinungsformen und Geschichte
eines Motivs. Bericht ber Kolloquien der Kommission fr literaturwissenschaftliehe Motiv- und Themenforschung 1983-1985. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wuthenow, Ralph-Rainer
1980
Im Buch die Bcher oder Der Held als Leser. Frankfurt: Europische Verlagsanstalt.
Ziolkowski, Theodore
1983
"Figures on Loan." Varieties of Literary Thematics. Princeton: Princeton Up,
123-151.
WOLFGANG KARRER
1. Theory
In its simplest form an intertextual tide is a literal quote from another text. Ship
of Pools (1962), for example, is a novel by Katherine Anne Porter quoting and
translating the tide Das Narren Schyff(1494), a social satire by Sebastian Brant.
In other words, Porter reproduces a textual element, also a tide, from another
text. Historical, cultural and geographical distance, and the contents of the two
books forbid any thought of plagiarizing. Porter uses what I have proposed to
call "elementary reproduction" (Karrer 1985). Just like any literal quote, the tide
reproduces a combination of words, specific and salient enough to be recognized as a quote. And just like any literal quote, the tide overcodes Porte~' s
novel with a second layer of meanings (Eco 1976, 133-135). The characters m
her novel, the ship situation, the whole social structure emerging in her book as
weIl as the moral framework she applies to it, will have to bear comparison with
Brant's representatives for the medieval estates and his humanistic values
grounding his satire.
123
124
W. Karrer
In selecting the title Atomic Shield we do not mean to suggest a definitive interpretation of the
post-World War II period of American history . Not enough time has passed for that. But we do
believe our title reflects a cornmon perspective shared by American leaders during those years
and that it will help the reader to perceive broad currents of historical change running through
our narrative. (Hewlett/Duncan 1969, xiv)
By quoting a key metaphor from political speeches in their tide, the authors
suggest a common perspective, that of American leaders, to their readers. In
other words, they borrow authority from the government - the book was commissioned by the AEC - to guide their readers' perception and interpretation of
events like the construction of the hydrogen bomb. The prior text subsurnes the
new one, and selects for it a point of view, not a definitive one, but authoritative.
Here is a fifth, rather elaborate example: Upton Sinclair's World's End (1941):
BOOK ONE:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
BOOK TWO:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
A LITTLE CLOUD
The Isles of Greece
This Realm, this England
Green and Pleasant Land
La Belle France
C' estla Guerre
BOOK THREE:
XII.
XIII.
XlV.
Xv.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
BOOK FOUR:
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
BOOK FIVE:
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
BOOKSIX:
XXXII.
XXXIII.
XXXIV.
XXXv.
XXXVI.
XXXVII.
XXXVIII.
125
TITLE OF BOOK:
Bible
Browning
TITLE OF CHAPTER:
11
111
Bible Virgil
IV
Smith
Shaw
Shakespeare
Shakespeare
Bible
VI
Bible
etc.
etc.
126
W. Karrer
,.
(philosophical dialogue)
(school tragedy)
(comedy)
(pastoral)
(melodrama)
(gothic novel)
(satiric film)
(advertisement)
127
constant and making the second position variable, mainly by filling it with various social classes and groups such as dukes, magistrates, women etc. Exhaustion
sets in and the overcoding fades, if the pattern is taken far enough like in I deas
Mirrour (1594), Daily Mirror or, simply, the Spiegel.
It seems, the imitation-variation technique, so characteristic of elementary
reproduction in titularity (Grivel1973, 182; Hoek 1981, 184f.), leads to paradigm formation, whether syntactic, as in the case of the double tide, or semantic,
as in the case of the mirror convention. One and the same tide, Ship of Fools,
refers to another tide (Brant) or a tide code (the fool paradigm).
Do these tide codes form a system (Rothe 1986, 9) ? Not quite, I think, but we
can try to systematize elementary and structural reproduction in semiotic terms,
drawing freely from the examples in the literature :
phoneticslgraphematics: reproduction of sound or letter patterns, such as trochaic rhythm
(Bergengruen 1960, 11, 13), alliteration (Bergengruen 1960, 139 f.); special typography, coloring
("rubrics"), spacing on the page, lining, the whole tide page taken as a graphematic system (Rothe
1986,425; Sondheim 1927). Mottoes carry their graphematic, decorative patterns, too (Segermann 1977,44-57).
syntax: reproduction of certain phrase structures, such as noun phrases and their progressive
amplifications (Bergengruen 1960, 19 ff.), or, probably a more fruitful approach, a generative
grammar for sentences with deletions or transformations (Hoek 1981, 83-91) to allow for transformations of genitives into compounds or other noun combinations (as in the "fool" example).
More generally, surface syntactic patterns serve to foreground certain words, arrange them in
linear order, and to connect them. The surface typologies in Bergengruen, Hoek, and Rothe
cover the essential paradigms for simple, double, tripie, or multiple noun phrases and their combinations: compound, genitive, copula series are frequent surface paradigms. If we extend the
rules to cover the relations between tide, second tide, subtide, tide group, and motto etc., the
patterns become more complex (cf. Grivel's typology, 1973,21-23; Rothe 1986,333,347,321),
but still remain patterns intertextually imitated and differentiated. There are even paradigms for
incomplete sentences, containing verb phrases (Bergengruen 1960, 155-177). Mottoes, though
mainly restricted to elementary reproduction, are habit-forming, too: certain conventions of
cutting and adapting quotes for motto es can be identified (Segermann 1977, 146 ff.). Faked
quotes in mottoes would make a fascinating study for motto paradigms.
semantics: paradigm formation through non-variation of one concept ("fool") or one semantic
marker in aseries of adjectives, nouns, compounds, single or in any syntactic linking. As a simple
formalization of Narren Schyff will show, there are different levels of abstraction:
(1 )
(2)
(3)
/'
'-...../
< e. g. L 'reoie des femmes >
Thus, World's End or Of Mice and Men do not simply quote the Bible or Burns. They also
paradigmatically reproduce, for instance, all < y + End> or all < Of + x> patterns. Of Mice and
Men thus suggests, beyond its literal or elementary reference to the lines in a poem by Robert
Burns, a structural or generic reference to the dignity of philosophical tides simply by beginning
the quote with "Of" (from Latin "De"). "Of" plus noun(s) is a syntactic tide paradigm, which
serves to enrich the tide quote with a structural reproduction. Both together overcode the follow-
128
W. Karrer
ing text by Steinbeck, and make it - among other things - a philosophical treatise on the human
condition. Other important paradigms are structured by semantic oppositions like new/old,
great/little, first/last etc. (Bergengruen 1960,63-70; Volkmann 1967, 1295) and one of the terms
is able to evoke intertextually its opposite. Semantic paradigms in mottoes need studying, the
examples in Bhm and the commonplace tradition suggest there are such paradigms (e. g. the
decorative Victorian "flower" motto; cf. Bhm 1975, 115-122).
sigmatics: the reproduction of the same reference, mainly through tides and names (The System of
Dante's Hell; U[ysses), where titles function like names (Hoek 1981,206-243). But tides do not
refer to individuals like names do, but to serial products, often mass-produced. Tides containing
the word "AIDS" or "American" , for instance, acquire their intertextuali ty only through the fact
that they refer to the same referent. Computer-supported full textual search in tide files more
often comes up with such co-references than with intertextuality. Are there sigmatic paradigms
for mottoes?
Before turning to pragmatics, let met try to sum up. Elementary reproduction
and structural reproduction are dialectically connected: the second arises from
the first, and serialization leads to increasing levels of abstraction. The further
away the new element moves from the established paradigm, its semantic marker(s), the weaker the overcoding and the paradigm, until complete exhaustion
and vacuity sets in (cf. Hoek 1981, 196). Each tide thus inscribes itself, knowingly or unknowingly, into one or more historie tide codes within which it
posits itself through elementary or structural reproduction, strongly or weakly.
Sigmatic, semantic, and syntactic paradigms may form independendy from each
other, but where they combine, like in the double tide, they may establish very
strong conventions lasting for centuries.
2. History
I
Critics have often noted fashions and period styles in tiding and mottoing
(Rothe 1970, 299). These changes are intimately connected with the medium
carrying the text (Kuhnen 1953; Wilke 1955). But the pragmatics of ti ding cannot be reduced to author-text-reader relations, even if we include the medium.
They will have to be related to a larger social and historie context. It is true,
much intertextuality derives from the author's expression ("Confessions",
"Autobiography", "Letters" etc.) or reader's response ("lustig", "thrilling" etc.;
cf. Volkmann 1967, 1177f.) or reference to common objects (e. g. the many
books called The Life of George Washington ). Others, mainly generic markers,
point at the medium employed (Song, Sermon, Treatise etc.; cf. Kuhnen 1953,
19-25; Hoek 1981, 189 f.). But to get through to the social relevance of tides and
mottoes one has to move beyond such narrow communicational functions.
Oral cultures know no tides. People refer to texts, stories told or songs sung,
through some name or episode, vaguely or clearly stored in their memories.
There seems to be no literal quoting, except for some sacred ritual texts, some
opening and ending formulas. These formulas create an intertextual framework
that allows people to identify the kind of textual situation they are about to enter
(Wilke 1955; Wieckenberg 1969, 27-40).
j
-'='
129
All this changes in scriptural societies. Intertextuality increases, though restricted to a small group of (mainly religious) scribes. Tides appear and differentiate one manuscript from another. First paradigms begin to form. Scribal conventions for opening and concluding texts replace the old oral formulas. Initial
letterings and subscriptions to manuscript illustrations lay the groundwork for
the mottoes. Tide slips are inserted into manuscript rolls; lemmata, rubrics,
performance indications are added to structure the texts and their readings
(Wilke 1955,2-45; Wieckenberg 1969,42-58). Tides are being catalogued. The
distinct roles of creator, performer and librarian of texts begin to emerge.
Print cultures change everything. The text becomes an increasingly mass-produced commodity, the tide its advertisement. Additional functions of the tide
emerge (Hoek 1981, 244-290). A differentiation of book, magazine, newspaper
texts sets in, and with it a differentiation of tide codes (Meyer 1987). Length of
tides, their placement, graphematic distribution, the linearity and hierarchy of
information, the relation of tide and motto, all undergo increasingly rapid semiotic codification; The main period of standardization is the 18th century with its
growing markets for reading matter (Rothe 1986, 266). Tide competition, tide
fraud, motto plagiarizing lead to regional, national and international copyright
agreements, often treating tides like registered trademarks of other commodities
(Rothe 1986, 39). Tides are slimmed down, many of their earlier ingredients are
exported to the cover, blurb, and back of the book or the frontispiece. Tide
changes become intricate bibliographie and economic problems (cf. Genette
1988,696 ff.). Intertextual elements signifying serialization are bracketed as the
additional serial tide (Rothe 1986, 15). Tide cataloguing codifies into manuals
for librarians and bibliographers.
The age of electronic media like films, radio, television, and videotexts freely
borrows from print culture and the stage, but also increases top-down hierarchies in tiding. Especially films, intertiding until the development of the sound
film, developed highly sophisticated codes of symbolizing power; market production relations in a film or television studio are thoroughly welded to
graphematics and syntax. They carry semantic and sigmatic rules of their own.
Videotexts open their tide files like any hard-disc computer, from the top on
down. Through market research and large computer files, intertextuality
achieves new dimensions. Swiftian machines register tides for bestselling books,
test salient key words among consumers, and rate attractive syntactic and
semantic paradigms for authors in search of a good tide (Rothe 1986,96). New
tides are registered through trade papers. It is not possible to register paradigms
as trademarks, but longer series will create the same effect. In 1988 the German
Ullstein Verlag reserved the right to use intertextual tides like Erotostrojka, Sexystroika, or Sexnost exclusively (Spiegel 52, Dec. 26, 1988, 178).
Not only does overcoding itself establish a positive, negative or ambivalent
relation to the tradition it quotes. Intertextual tides and mottoes also reproduce
with the elements and structures of texts from the past a way of reproducing
literature and its functions. What simply began as a device to distinguish and
130
W. Karrer
identify one manuscript from another, accumulated through print and electronic media other functions (to justify, facilitate, open, structure the text, to
produce an interest, inform about the poetic code, and fictionalize the co-text;
finally to attract the attention, dispose the reader, ,make hirn value and buy the
text). But these functions tend to integrate into functional hierarchies (Hoek
1981,279), serving to dissemble the ongoing reproduction of devices and functions and to make the reader assent to the reproduced values of the dominating
ideology (Hoek 1981, 280-287).
If tide differentiation increases with competition in different consumer markets, this seems to reflect differences in social and cultural capital as postulated
by Bourdieu (Bourdieu/Boltanski 1981). The often noted presence of social tides in literary on es (Volkmann 1967, 1166, 1183, 1232, 1251, 1274f.; Hoek
1981, 120, 126; Bergengruen 1960, 77-92) seems to point at a more than a
homonymous coincidence. The asynchronous and conflicting relation between
tide and economic position (Bourdieu/Boltanski 1981, 89-90) seems to find its
equivalent in the relation between intertextual tide or motto and following text.
Textual relations in novels, plays and poems innovate more quickly than their
intertextual tides and mottoes. The literary tide stakes a claim for a position in
the market, analogous to social tides in the job market. Intertextual tides and
motto es carry a cultural and social capital (Bourdieu/Boltanski 1981, 95) that
through paradigms establishes systems of classification for such tides. And these
classifications reflect (as in reallife) intense social conflicts and negotiations
between paradigms and tide codes (Bourdieu/Boltanski 1981, 103 ff.). Intertextuality in tides and motto es thus not only reproduces bits of earlier texts, but
also conflicting systems of tide co~es, carrying different social and cultural capital. Intertextuality itself thus b~comes a product and tool of social reproduction,
reflecting hierarchies in society and reproducing them at the same time. Let me
test and illustrate these rather abstract hypotheses with a few additional exampIes.
They come from the chronological chart of tides in the Oxford Companion to
American Literature, mainly from the nineteenth and twentieth century. I shall
look at tided tides, tides that bring social and literary tides together. Explicit
social ranking tends to fade away after the American Revolution to be replaced
by the subder ranking through ethnici ty and ancestrallines in American society:
The Prince o[ Parthia (1765)
Julia and the Illuminated Baron (1800)
Bracebridge Hall (1822)
"Alnwick Castle" (1822)
Koningsmarke (1823)
Charles the Second (1824)
Richelieu (1826)
Tamerlane and Other Poems (1827)
Fanshawe (1828)
Metamora (1829)
The Hawks o[ Hawk-Hollow (1835)
131
The decline of this aristocratic tide code is due to the rise of another:
Simon Suggs (1845)
Margaret Smith'sJournal (1849)
Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)
Mrs. Partington (1854)
Widow Bedott Papers (1856)
Neighbor Jackwood (1857)
Courtship o[ Miles Standish (1857)
Elsie Venner (1861)
Margaret Howth (1862)
John Brent (1862)
Private Miles O'Reilly (1864)
Hans Brinker (1865)
Josh Billings (1865)
BillArp (1866)
Tom Sawyer (1876)
Daisy Miller (1876)
Roxy (1878)
HazelKirke (1880)
Uncle Remus (1881)
Mr. Isaacs (1882)
Huckleberry Finn (1884) etc.
Even without explicit ranking, tide names imply through their intertextuality
with social names, caste, class or social standing. Both Roderick H udson and
Tom Sawyer appeared in 1876, but belong to two different sigmatic and pragmatic paradigms or social codes. If names condense semantic markers of time, place
and social standing, then tide names imply all that and contain a full narrative
program for their heroes of the book (cf. Rothe 1986, 13; Hoek 1981, 206-43).
Ranking through names ce des to symbolic ranking through traditional emblems of superiority or humility. The change, again, comes with the second half
of the 19th century and realism. Compare the following symbolic rankings (I
emphasize only the key words):
The Marble Faun (1860)
Surry of Eagle's Nest (1866)
The Gates Ajar (1868)
132
W. Karrer
133
Again, compare Black Oxen to Black Armour, both appeared in 1923, both
belong to the same syntactic and even semantic (color) paradigm, but pragmatically they are as farapart as knighthood and fieldwork are. Cabbages and Kings
(1904) summarizes the underlying conflict rather neatly. The shift from name
paradigm to symbol paradigm reflects increasing reification and brings titles and
mottoes doser together; mottoes stern directly from the heraldic and emblematic traditions these titles draw on (Segermann 1977, 14-23). Mottoes in
nineteenth century literature and in twentieth-century criticism rank authors and by implication their texts -like a device for gentry and nobility. Notice that
many of the ennobling symbolic titles are intertextual, drawing on the Bible,
Shakespeare, Shelley etc. Intertextuality in titles and mottoes may pragmatically
serve to legitimize, ennoble, and dissemble products from a market economy,
promising a use value the texts they introduce often do not have.
If texts open to their social conditions through titles and mottoes and dosely
reproduce or challenge the dominating cultural codes, reproduce or innovate the
very reproductive mechanisms themselves, then literary titles and mottoes do
not only reflect the social fantasies of their readers (Rothe 1986, 115f., 124).
They reproduce and standardize them in paradigms that help to stabilize the
ruling ideologies about the individual creator or hero in society. They reproduce
or challenge the literary canon, genre hierarchies and social ranking etc. If the
relatively simple model of paradigm formation and code building sketched here
holds, we will have to try them out in more complex syntactic, semantic, sigmatic or pragmatic structures like plots, narrative stances, configurations, symbolic
networks, or dialogue construction. Titles and mottoes may just be miniatures,
but also a beginning for a more pragmatic study of intertextuality, induding
questions of ranking, authority, ideological reproductionand hierarchical overcoding.
'
Bibliography
Bergengruen, Werner
1960
Titulus. Das ist: Miszellen, Kollektaneen und Fragmentarische, mit gelegentlichen
Irrtmern durchsetzte Gedanken zur Naturgeschichte des deutschen Buchtitels;
oder, Unbetitelter Lebensroman eines Bibliotheksbeamten. Mnchen: Nymphenburger.
Berger, D. A.
. '''Damn the Mottoe': Scott and the Epigraph." Anglia 100, 373-396.
1982
Bhm, Rudolf
1975
Das Motto in der englischen Literatur des 19.Jahrhunderts. Mnchen: Fink.
134
W. Karrer
UD0J. HEBEL
Critical enthusiasm for the newly created, though not entirely novel, concept of
intertextuality has resuscitated scholarly interest in the time-ho no red concept of
allusion. 1 While Genette treats allusion as only one manifestation of intertextuality within his elaborate classification of transtextuality (Genette 1982, 8),
Schmid asserts allusion as the cardinal manifestation of intersemanticity (Schmid
1983, 145-146). Definitions of allusion as a device for the "formation of intertextual patterns" (Ben-Porat 1976, 108), "a device for linking texts" (Ben-Porat
1979, 588), a "link between texts" (Perri 1978,289), or a "trope of relatedness"
(Perri 1984, 128) bear ample witness to the multifaceted attempts of theoreticians of allusion to employ the terminological, and conceptual, advantages of
intertextual theory. The fusion of traditional allusional research with recent intertextual approaches has prompted a more far-reaching appreciation of allusion; and the latter may now serve as the over-arching category for an interpretation of verifiable relationships between texts, or, in poststructuralist terms, between a text and the intertextual deja of the texte general. The following paper
outlines major developments in allusional theory and presents a working definition of allusion as evocative manifestation of intertextual relationships. It introduces a sequence of categories designed to describe overt allusions as functional
parts of narrative texts. The approach submitted is to advance the theoretical
understanding of allusions and to contribute to the formalization and systematization of their interpretation.
As the paper will limit its references to tides direcdy bearing on the argumentation, the following
three bibliographies may provide further sources : Perri 1979; Bruce 1983; Hebel 1989 a.
136
u. Hebel
and a "fifth meaning, still incorrect but bound to establish itself [that] now
equates allusion with direct, overt reference" (Bloom 1975, 126). Bloom's conclusive dichotomy draws attention to a significant point of controversy among
scholars of allusion as it foregrounds the definitional opposition 'covert' vs.
'overt.' Traditional notions that tend to emphasize the very indirectness, covertness, tacitness, or implicitness of allusions have mainly been perpetuated in
handbooks to literature, above all in Preminger's Princeton Encyclopedia of
Poetry and Poetics (Preminger et al. 1974, 18; cf. Schweikle/Schweikle 1984, 15;
Holman 1980, 12; Wilpert 1979,30; Cuddon 1977, 30-31). This conception of
allusion has inspired an almost infinite number of encyclopedic endeavors,
which trace and document hidden references, without, however, always paying
due attention to the interpretive potential of the intertextual links retrieved.
N evertheless, philological zeal, sometimes even a kind of detective passion, has
laid invaluable groundwork for ensuing interpretations of some of the most
allusive works of world literature (cf. e. g., Rathjen 1988; Weisenburger 1988;
Coffler 1985; Clark 1931/1974; N athan 1969; Thornton 1968; J ensch 1925;
Burgess 1903/1968).
Recent studies on allusion, among which those by Ben-Porat (1973, 1976,
1979), Perri (1978,1984), Johnson (1976), Coombs (1984), Rodi (1975), and,
though in a different mann er , Conte (1974/1986) and Schaar (1975, 1978, 1982)
deserve special mention, have paved the way for a more encompassing understanding of allusion. Thus, Ziva Ben-Porat, defining (literary) allusion as "the
simultaneous activation of two texts," differentiates between allusion as a device
for "the formation of intertextual patterns" on the one hand, and allusion as a
"directional signal" (or "marker"~ on the other, and asserts that the "marker is
always identifiable as an element or pattern belonging to another independent
text, [ ... ] even when the pattern is a comprehensive one, such as the tide of a
work or the name of a protagonist" (Ben-Porat 1976, 107-108). Ben-Porat's
inclusion of tides, names, and, later in the essay, "exact" quotations (Ben-Porat
1976, 110), modifies traditional views of allusion as it recognizes overt references
as allusional markers. Even more frankly, Carmela Perri urges the "disregard for
the usual criterion of covertness" (Perri 1978, 299): "Allusion-markers may be
overt, indeed, may occur as the extreme case of overtness, proper names" (Perri
1978,298, cf. 289 and 304). Allusional studies no Ion ger focus on an allusion's
implicitness or explicitness, but direct attention to its relational quality. The
allusion's potential to guide the reader to an additional referent outside the alluding text and the allusion's potential to build up semantically significant links
between the alluding text and the alluded-to text have moved into the limelight
of critical interest. Notwithstanding Preminger's 1986 rehash of the traditional
definition (Preminger et al. 1986, 10) and Bloom's contemptuous assault quoted
above, this perspective has by now found access to at least two literary handbooks (Abrams 1981, 8; Frye, Baker, Perkins 1985, 15).
What seems to be litde more than an inconsequential exercise in definition
entails litde less than a restructuring of the terminological and conceptual field
137
of intertextuality, allusion, and quotation. Within the larger frame of intertextual theory, as it has been laid out by Kristeva and her disciples, allusion becomes
the over-arching category under wh ich quite divers devices for establishing verifiable intertextual relations can be subsumed. Above all, this stratification overcomes the weaknesses of several studies on intertextuallinks as regards the relationship between allusion and quotation. Even Herman Meyer, in his still important work Das Zitat in der Erzhlkunst, calls the two categories "irgendwie
verschwistert" (Meyer 1967, 15), but does not explain the specific nature of this
congeniality any further. While Oppenheimer (1961, 1), Wheeler (1979,3), and
Bettina Plett (1986, 10) have argued in favor of allusion as the generic term,
Tetzeli von Rosador (1973, 2), Neumann (1980, 302), and Stierle (1984, 148)
have underscored quotation as the comprehensive concept. Genette treats allusion and quotation as equally leveled subcategories of intertextuality (Genette
1982, 8). The above redefinition of allusion, together with the establishing of the
latter as a directional signal that refers the reader to another text outside the
alluding text, allows for the incorporation of quotations into the larger category
of allusion. Quotations, whether cryptic or marked, are nothing more, and
nothing less, than specific fillings of the syntagmatic space of the allusive signal.
It may even be contended that quotations, especially marked quotations, are
particularly 'directional' because, in addition to literalness (cf. Simon 1984,
1052; Morawski 1970, 691), referentiality has repeatedly been stressed as an
important feature of quotations (cf. esp. Meyer 1967, 15; Neumann, 1980,297;
Voss, 1985, 9; Plett 1988).
138
U. Hebel
lt will be interesting to note that Ferdinand de Saus sure contrasted 'syntagmatic' and 'associative': "Le rapport syntagmatique est in praesentia: il repose sur deux ou plusieurs termes egalement presents dans une serie effective. Au contraire le rapport associatif unit des termes in absentia dans une serie mnemonique virtuelle." (Saussure 1969, 171)
r"
.~.,:-
139
ary allusions evoke the whole of the alluded-to text and, therewith, further
semantic equivalences and oppositions, "topical or historie al allusions to persons or events" (Perri 1978, 305) evoke further attributes and connotations of
their referents that mayaiso contribute to the semantic enrichment of the alluding text. Thus, any allusion acts as a "stumbling block" (Riffaterre 1978, 6),
drawing the reader's attention to the text's intertextual relationships.
From this perspective, the allusive system of a text becomes the verifiable
cross section where text and intertext meet, and where the intertextual background of the text becomes tangible for the reader. In terms of intertextual
theory, allusions are manifestations of the text' s ideologeme that marks the text' s
historical and social coordinates: "L'acceptation d'un texte comme un
ideologeme determine la demarche meme d'une semiotique qui, en etudiant le
texte comme une intertextualite, le pense ainsi dans (le texte de) la societe et
l'histoire." (Kristeva 1969, 114) Therefore, allusive signals are to be studied as
fragments of the intertextual deja, as metonymie elements participating in - at
least - two systems of signification. In following critics who have stressed the
general metonymie quality of allusive and quotational elements (cf. e. g., Hhler
1969,48; Pollak 1974, 62; Klotz 1976,265; Ben-Porat 1976, 108; Schaar 1978,
384; Voigts 1981, 362; Bell 1981 ; Stierle 1984, 148; Pfister 1985, 29), the present
approach argues for an understanding of allusions as metonymie fragments of
the intertextual deja.
Nadel specifies this position: "Literary allusions, in other words, are a covert
form of literary criticism, in that they force us to reconsider the alluded-to text
and request us to alter our understanding of it." (Nadel 1982, 650) Thus, notions
T
140
U. Hebel
of allusion as evocative, bilaterally operative signal link up with Genette's concept of metatextuality (Genette 1982, 10) and render Eliot's quasi-intertextual
ideas about the simultaneity of all works of literature and the perpetual process
of readjusting, if ever so slightly, the relations among them surprisingly up-todale (Eliot 1917/1932).
These dynamic conceptions of allusion require the active participation of the
reader in the actualization process in order to exhaust the allusion' s evocative
potential as far as possible. It is therefore small wonder that, e. g., Perri (1978,
301) and Schaar (1982, 23) stress the importance of the reader for their approach
to allusion. Interestingly enough, it was Julia Kristeva herself, though in different terms and in a different context, who took note of the role of the reader:
"Pour le sujet connaissant, l'intertextualite est une notion qui sera l'indice de la
fac;on dont un texte lit l'histoire et s'insere en elle." (Kristeva 1968, 311) The
establishment of intertextuallinks and the actualization of the evocative potential of allusions depends on the reader's "Resonanzbereitschaft" (Rodi 1975,
129) and his/her "Allusionskompetenz" (Schmid 1983, 154) because allusions,
defined by Rodi as "kulturelle Kommunikationseinheiten" (Rodi 1975), always
presuppose a certain foreknowledge on the side of the reader. If this allusive
competence is not available, if the reader cannot "recreate the textual universe"
(Schaar 1982,23), he/she must compensate for this deficit. To the best of his/her
abilities, he/she must work towards becoming an "informed reader" who makes
his/her "mind the repository of the (potential) responses a given text might call
out" and who "suppress[es], in so far as that is possible, [... ] what is personal
and idiosyncratic" in his/her response (Fish 1970, 145). The reader's archeological endeavors (cf. Schaar 1978, 382 ;.Stempel1983, 87) to appreciate the allusion's
evocative potential with the help of as many extratextual sources as accessible to
hirn/her prevents the confusion of one interpreter's allusive competence with
the allusion's potential, and bases the interpretation of allusions on more verifiable grounds.
The interpretation of allusions should no Ion ger content itself with more or
less atomistically tracing (hidden) allusions or with listing allusions denotatively; it should proceed to the fuller appreciation of their evocative potential,
elusive as the latter may be. The archeological activity of actualizing allusions
leads to the verbalization and documentation of the potential associations they
might trigger. 3 The resulting compendium that will be especially important for
historically or culturally removed texts serves to bridge presuppositional gaps
and to stop intertextual erosion (Riffaterre 1978, 136), not to limit a text' s
semantic openness or to curb the theoretically unlimited and uncontrollable
range of associations. The ensuing interpretation can, of course, no longer be
considered a spontaneous act of reading, but turns into the deli berate attempt of
3
I have demonstrated this kind of archeological work in my study on Fitzgerald's This Side 0/
Paradise; Hebel 1989 b. This work also includes the schema of the intertextual paradigm for the
documentation of evocative potential as weIl as an extensive apparatus of reference works.
141
an 'informed' critic - the text archeologist - to res tore the text's associative
verticality that purely syntagmatic readings are inclined to disregard.
142
u. Hebel
2. Describing Allusions
2.1. Syntagmatic Manifestations of Allusions
f'
1.'<;'
~
~'
~"
143
144
u. Hebel
145
and the author's - playfulness as, e. g., in Nabokov's Pale Fire (1962). The explicit mention of authors in connection with quotational and titular allusions
further contributes to the intertextual intensity of the signals, and the text in
general. Although intrinsically referential and communicative, onomastic allusions are, however, less selective (Pfister 1985,28-29). While quotations, owing
to their specific metonymic structure, are likely to establish rather precise intertextuallinks, an author's name is much more prone to evoke an a:uvre or even a
literary tradition. Tides, especially tides of so-called classic works of literature,
should be placed in the middle between these two poles that represent a quite
definite, yet evocative intertextual connection on the one hand, and a more comprehensive, even more evocative intertextual connection on the other. Thus, the
analysis of this first descriptive category not only leads to the examination of an
allusion's and, eventually, a text's intertextual intensity, but also to the analysis
of an allusion's and, eventually, a text's semantic openness. One step further,
then, the analysis will deal with the structure of the text's implied reader and the
latter's presupposed allusive competence.
t.
146
U. Hebel
On the basis of structuralist models of the text and their distinctions between
the level of the (narrating) discourse and the level of the (narrated) story\
Broich's suggestions for a classification of means of marking intertextuality
(Broich 1985, 31-47), and Genette's concept ofparatextuality (Genette 1982,9),
the present approach proposes a threefold differentiation: allusions can occur as
elements of the paratext, as elements of the extern al system of communication,
or as elements of the internal system of communication. Paratextual allusions
include, above all, allusions in titles, epigraphs, chapter headings and chapter
epigraphs, notes, and prefaces. Titles such as Tender is the Night (1933/1961),
with its allusion to Keats, and The Sun Also Rises (1926/1954), with its allusion
to Ecclesiastes, are well-known examples of intertextual titles. The quotations
marked as taken from Melville's Benito Cereno and Eliot's Family Reunion in
Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man (Ellison 1947) bear witness to the widespread
convention of the epigraph. Fowles's The French Lieutenant's Woman (1969)
makes ample use of quotational allusions for chapter headings. Eliot's "Notes on
the Waste Land" show how intertextuallinks can also be established on this level
of the paratext.
Although some paratexts may be intricately mingled with the narrative process proper - e. g., the "forewords" to Nabokov's Lolita (1955/1958/1970) and
Pale Fire (1962) which are also partly reminiscent of the topos of the found
manuscript - the majority of paratextual allusions, and especially intertextual
titles, epigraphs, and chapter headings, are usually not part of the mediative
process of narrating and often border on authorial commentary. They are therefore not grouped with those allusions that are located in the extern al system of
communication between the nan:i1tor (whose realm of existence needs not be
identical with the fictional world, but who is still not identical with the historical
person of the author) and the ;eader. Allusions on this level are primarily participating in the act of narrating; i. e., they are primarily part of the discourse as
the linguistic and semantic concretization of the events. Such allusions are unknown to the characters of the fictional world, and they have frequently been
treated as elements of the "parole of literary men" (Boswell 1922, 152) or as
elements of a "Geheimgesprch" (Giustiniani 1965, 113) between - in terms of
older narrative theory - author and reader. Striking examples of such discursive
allusions are the adjectival signals "Freudian," "Swinburnian," "Byronic,"
"Shelleyan," "Dionysian," and "epicurean" in This Side 0/ Paradise (Fitzgerald
1920/1970,6,7,99,107,109,143) whose attributive usage evidences their farreaching assimilation into the discursive strategies of this text and makes them
assurne quasi-Iexical status, especially when the capitalization is dropped as in
the last example.
Allusions located in the internal system of communication are accessible to
the fictional characters and presented as part of the narrated fictional world. At
4
For a survey of structuralist approaches by Barthes, Bremond, Chatman, Genette, Stierle, and
Todorov, cf. Ludwig 1982, 65-77.
147
first sight, it may seem largely irrelevant for their description whether the
characters themselves, including first-person narrators and reflector characters,
quote texts at length and mention books or historical figures in their own
speeches, or whether the narrator's text refers to books or persons from outside
the fictional world in such a way that their presence within the fictional world,
e. g., as books read or discussed by the characters, becomes obvious. Closer
analyses of these subcategories reveal, however, that there are nevertheless considerable differences in intertextual intensity between the brief mention of a
book as part of a character's reading in the narrator's text as opposed to the
explicit discussibn of a book. When, in Joyce' s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young
Man, Stephen Dedalus "pored over a ragged translation of The Count of Monte
Cristo" Ooyce 1916/1976, 62), the foregrounding of the intertextuallink is not
quite as effectual as when, only little later in the same novel, Captain Marryat,
Cardinal Newman, Lord Tennyson, and Byron Ooyce 1916/1976, 80-81) are
'critically' evaluated in a reported conversation of the boys. The following passage from the dialog between the protagonist and Mr. Norton in Ellison's Invisible Man illustrates how allusions located in the characters' direct speech increase the intensity of the intertextual relation:
..
. j
I
The description of allusions with regard to their localization allows for the
evaluation of their functioning either as discursive elements in the external system of communication or as elements of the fictional world rendered in the act of
narrating. The analysis of discursive allusions contributes to the appraisal of the
artistic dimension of the alluding text and touches upon, among other things,
techniques of characterization or setting evocation. The analysis of allusions
presented as part of the fictional world emphasizes the metatextual dimension of
the text because these allusions are narrated, and thus commented upon, just as
the events and characters of the fictional world are narrated and commented
upon. The interpretation of the localization of allusions documents their double-directed role: "Die Sprache bildet im Roman nicht nur ab, sondern sie dient
auch selbst als Gegenstand der Abbildung." (Bachtin 1979, 309)
2.3. Dimension(s) of Reference
While the first two categories remain mostly independent of the preparatory
archeological work and mayaiso be applied to pseudointertextual allusions, the
third category, dimension(s) of reference, relies on both the extrafictional verification of the point of reference and the actualization of the allusion. The sys-
148
U. Hebel
tematic analysis of a text's allusive frame of reference not only replaces the
atomistic examination of single allusions but above all reveals the text's metatextual position within the intertextual deja. As early as 1928, Johnson focused on
the "sources of literary allusion and reference used by modern writers, especially in America" Oohnson 1928, 1), and established ten groups: the Bible,
religion, classical life to 300 A. D., his tory, folklore, medieval literature
(300-1550), modern literature (since 1550), art, science, and commerce/industry. Fifty years later, Wheeler stressed three major areas:
Cultural allusions help to identify or define national, regional or dass cultures. [ ... ] Generic
allusion indicates the relationship between an adoptive text and a literary convention or tradition.
[ ... ] Textual allusions are by far the most common kind in Victorian fiction, establishing links
between specific adopted and adoptive texts. (Wheeler 1979, 18-20).
Taken together, both studies suggest a threefold partition of the referential dimension: temporally, spatially, and with regard to the area of reference.
The description of allusions with regard to the temporal aspect permits the
assessment of the overall temporal frame of reference of the alluding text as well
as the analysis of the latter's topicality effected by connections with the immediate texte general. In addition to Johnson's rather broad chronological classification (biblical times, classical antiquity, middle ages, modern times), it will therefore be necessary to define the temporal dimension of an allusion more precisely
with regard to the century to which its referent can be traced and/or with regard
to the latter's contemporaneity with the alluding text, i. e., with the time of its
production and immediate reception. Contemporary allusions contribute decisively to a text's 'realityeffect' (Ba.rthes 1968), while, at the same time, eroding
the text's understandability by "their very topicality. Two striking examples of
topicality achieved by means of evoking prominent figures of the contemporary
texte general concern the last-minute insertion of the allusion to "a critic named
Mencken" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970,209) into the galley proofs of Fitzgerald's first
novel and the allusion to Norman Mailer giving "a perfectly coherent, surprisingly pedantic talk on 'The Great American Novel: When Is It Due?'" (Oates
1968,67) in Expensive People.
The analysis of the spatial aspect places allusions into the geographical and
linguistic surroundings of the text. This subcategory requires ongoing modification with every new text examined and renders strictly national or linguistic
differentiations basically inadequate. The interpretation of American and English texts, however, should always account for the specific historical and linguistic relationship between both nations. Together with the temporal analysis, this
second subcategory provides further insight into the text's presuppositions and
the structure of its implied reader. That authors do pay attention to problems of
presupposition and intertextual erosion can be documented by Fitzgerald's
"plan about the reissue of Paradise Ci. e., This Side o[ Para dis e] with changed
names, (For those underThirty Six.)" (Fitzgerald 1978, 315; cf. also Preisendanz
1984,543 on Wieland).
T
f
149
Although the description of the areas of reference may take up Johnson's and
Wheeler's proposals, it must be left particularly open to modification. Each new
text may require scholars to add areas of intertextual reference and/or drop
those that have traditionally been prominent. Nevertheless, subcategories such
as literature, religion/Bible, history, politics, science, economics, philosophy,
the fine arts (including their subdivisions ), legal affairs, education, sports, mass
media (including their subdivisions)~ folklore, mythology, etc., may furnish a
starting point for the intertextual study of any text. The interpretation of twentieth century texts should employ the subcategory of popular culture and especially popular literature, popular music, and the movies. 5 Already a superficial
perusal of modern American literature induces the hypothesis that the Bible,
cla;sical antiquity, and Shakespeare that Wheeler stresses as the three most important sources for allusions in Victorian fiction (Wheeler 1979, 11, 16,24) have
lost at least part of their influence on modern and contemporary literature although the significance of the Bible as an intertextual point of reference still
seems hard to overestimate. Two exemplary texts worth studying with respect
to popular culture allusions are Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye with its allusions to magazines ("Vogue," "Saturday Evening Post"; Salinger 1951/1964, 58,
124-125), entertainment (" the Ziegfeld Follies"; Salinger 1951/1964,29), and the
movies ("Cary Grant," "Peter Lorre," "Sir Laurence Olivier"; Salinger 1951/
1964,37,72,117), and Sam Shepard's play The Tooth o[Crimewithits abundant
allusions to popular rock music of the 1960s (e. g., "'Heroin' by the Velvet
Underground"; Shepard 1974/1981,205). The allusion to David Belasco in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby ('''This fella's a regular Belasco. It's a triumph. What
thoroughness! What realism! Knew when to stop, too - didn't cut the pages."';
Fitzgerald 1925/1953,46) evinces how allusions to contemporary (popular) culture, in this instance to one of the foremost American theater producers of the
times, supersede allusions to the Bible, classical mythology, and Shakespeare.
This allusion to Belasco and his obsession with creating an illusion of reality on
stage parallels the thematic core of the novel, i. e., Gatsby's ultimately futile
attempt to make his illusionary dream ofDaisy, and all she represents, come true
by staging one gigantic show for her.
The systematic analysis of a text's allusive frame of reference with regard to
the three dimensions discussed leads to the retrieval and evaluation of the text' s
intertextual coordinates. It lays the groundwork for the interpretation of the
text's metatextual position as it outlines major areas of intertextual reference. In
connection with the second category (localization) this third category enables
the interpreter to appraise the characterizing function of allusions more precisely, as those signals located in the characters' direct speech - or otherwise
accessible to the fictional characters - are now assessed with regard to their
field(s) of reference and thus, consequently, with regard to their characterizing
5
Further d~ssifications may utilize the subcategories established by Inge in his Handbook
American Popular Culture (In ge 1978-1981).
0/
150
U. Hebel
implications. Finally, the analyses of various texts spread out historically may
disclose possible changes in the intertextual frames of reference throughout
literary his tory and, thus, possible changes in the structures of implied readers
and their presupposed cultural knowledge.
2.4. Modi[ication
o[ Allusions
151
tions from this link, it will be agreeable to most critics of Fitzgerald's novel
to stress the allusion "Wall Street" as a major means of support to its thematic
core.
The modification of "Sinclair" to "Sainclair" sparks equally interesting associations. Though somewhat more speculative, three interpretations come to
mind: "Sainclair" may call forth Fitzgerald's and Lewis's common but differing
relations hip with Saint Paul, Minn.; "Sainclair" may be taken as an ironic allusion to the reverence Lewis enjoyed as the first American winner of the Nobel
Prize for literature; finally, and most convincingly, "Sainclair" may evoke, again
ironically, Lewis's appearances and sermons in various churches in the course of
his investigations for his novel Eimer Gantry (1927). Although it is neither possible nor desirable to decide on the "correctness" of any of these readings, they
can nevertheless serve to elucidate the additional interpretive potential brought
in by seemingly minor modifications, in this instance the insertion of the letter
"a" in Lewis's first name. Both modifications, that of the tide by means of substitution and that of the name by means of addition, prove that the fourth category must not be limited to quotational allusions, but be applied to onomastic
and titular allusions as well.
The description of allusions with regard to possible modifications can refer to
traditional rhetorical transformations such as addition, deletion, substitution,
and permutation (cf. Plett 1985, 82-83). Besides, the description should mark
deviations in punctuation and obvious misprints whose far-reaching effect was
once and for all demonstrated by the well-known example of the "soiled/coiled
fish" in Melville's White lacket (cf. NichoI1949/1950). However, despite this
last subgroup, the evaluation of recognized modifications aims at the appreciation of the text's polysemies, not at the retrieval of editions used by the author or
at the correction of textual corruptions, no matter how important these questions might be philologically. Another major point of interest lies with the
metatextual factor of modifications because deviations between the variants
quite frequendy imply a commentary on the point of reference. Yet, such commentaries are also to be seen as part of the semantic potential of the text, not as
clues to the critical opinions of the author.
152
U. Hebel
descriptions" (Searle 1969, 172), proper names are primarily referential and, at
the same time, particularly open to associative fillings, with the latter more dependent on the allusive competence and personal disposition of the individual
reader than on his/her linguistic competence. When Winston Smith, the protagonist of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, is awakened from his dream about
the Arcadian "Golden Country" to the dreary reality of Big Brother's Oceania
"with the word 'Shakespeare' on his lips" (Orwell1949/1984, 24), the interpretive significance of this "word" is not equal to the meaning of its two semantic
components, but rather to what the reader associates with the name of William
Shakespeare. The evocation of a counterworld to Oceania by means of the allusion to Shakespeare as a prominent representative of Western civilization
only succeeds if the onomastic allusion is actualized accordingly. That
onomastic allusions are especially endangered by intertextual erosion and particularly liable to incompetent actualization needs little elaboration at this
point.
With the exception of quotations constituted by proper names only, quotational allusions usually hold a semantic meaning owing to the lexical items enclosed within the signal. Without challenging the axiom that the actualization of
an allusion always enriches the alluding text semantically, passages organized
around quotational allusions can, to a certain extent at least, be comprehended
without further actualizing the allusions. Thus, the quotation from Marvell's
"To His Coy Mistress" in A Farewell to Arms ('''But at my back I always he ar/
Time's winged chariot hurrying near."'; Hemingway 1929/1957,154) conveys
the idea of time running out for the protagonists almost by itself. Extreme cases
of such quotational allusions are proverbs or epigrams quoted in their entirety,
as, e. g., the "old epigram [ ... ] playing listlessly in [Amory's] mind: 'Very few
things matter and nothing matters very much'" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970,266), and
quotations that have become independent from their original cotexts, as is the
case with the following stanza from Nicolson's popular poem "The Teak
Forest" that has even been anthologized separately:
For this is wisdom - to love and live,
To take what Jate or the gods may give,
To ask no question, to make no prayer,
To kiss the lips and caress the hair,
Speed passion's ebb as we greet its flow,
To have and to hold, and, in time -let go. (Fitzgerald 1920/1970,194-195)
On the contrary, short or elliptic quotational allusions, as e. g., the quotes from
the popular song "Babes in the Woods" in This Side o[ Paradise ('''Fourteen
angels were watching o'er them' [ ... ]"; Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 71), from Dylan's
"Blowin' in the Wind" in Updike's Couples, and from Tristan und Isolde in
Eliot's The Waste Land, remain rather incomplete, cryptic, and predominantly
suggestive in their meaning.
Titular allusions belong to the most complex signals as far as the description of
their semantic meaning is concerned. Rothe (1986), Buder (1982), and Hoek
153
154
u. Hebel
155
"
After examining the semantic meaning of the signal, the description turns to the
latter's cotextualization. 6 Similar to the prior category, this sixth one remains
largely independent of the actualization of the allusion. Although quite a few
scholars have pointed to the significance of the signal's cotext(s) (cf. e. g.,
Motiramani 1983,13; Brownson 1976, 10; Lemke 1973,56), they have not yet
offered a systematic approach to this important issue of allusion studies. With
~he exc.eption.of paratextu.al signals, allusions may be cotextualized by their
ImmedIate lexlcal surroundmgs and/or by their relation(s) to structural elements
such as character or setting. Of course, lexical and structural cotextualization
may overlap when allusions are lexically cotextualized and, at the same time,
related to a character in the narrator's text, or, together with the lexical cotext,
located in a character's direct speech.
When Rosemary Hoyt, in Tender is the Night, is presented "as dewy with
belief as a child from one of Mrs. Burnett's vicious tracts" (Fitzgerald 1933/
1961, 34), the allusion located in the (external) narrator's text characterizes
Rosemary, while its intertextual point of reference, Frances Burnett's Little
Lord Fauntleroy or any other of her sentimental success novels, is commented
upon by means of lexical and figural cotextualization. The examples of "all that
David Copperfield kind of crap" (Salinger 1951/1964,1) in The Catcher in the
Rye and of Richard Everett and his mother Nada, a writer herself, "scorning the
Reader's Digest" (Oates 1968, 46) in Expensive People, underscore the importance of the respective narrative situation (first-person retrospective narration)
for a full comprehension of the lexical and figural cotextualization and their
commentating effect. In both instances, it is not only the immediate lexical
cotextualization ("kind of crap," "scorning") that affects the allusion, but also
its figural cotextualization (Holden Caulfield, Richard Everett). Yet another
variation of lexical and figural cotextualization working together concerns the
localization of an allusion in a character's direct speech and its lexical co tex tu alization by this very character' s own words:
"[ ... ] I need young critical things like you to punch me up. Tell me, what are you reading?"
"I've been re-reading 'The Damnation ofTheron Ware.' Do you know it?"
"Yes. It was clever. But hard. Man wanted to tear down, not build up. Cynical. Oh, I do hope
I'm not a sentimentalist. But I can't see any use in this high-art stuff that doesn't encourage us
,
day-laborers to plod on." (Lewis 1920, 66)
The terms cotext and cotextualization are given preference over the terms context and contextuali~ation .in order to emFhasi~e t.he i~tratextual dimension of this sixth category as compared to
the dlmenslOn of the text s soclohlstoncal context that would be related to the third category.
character( s) needs to be taken into account, and that a fruitful application of this
subc~tegory requires a dose interpretation of the fictional characters employed
for figural cotextualization. The interpretation of the characters involved becomes especially important when fictional characters and intertextual referents
are directly linked or even equated in the speech of another fictional character.
When Jesse Ferrenby, one of the Princeton students in This Side of Paradise,
greets Burne Holiday, the campus radical and intellectual, with the words
"'Hello. there, Savonarola. '" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 133), both, Burne' s c'ampus
reputatIOn as expressed by Jesse and Burne's character as it can be inferred from
the events and further allusions to The Masses, Tolstoy, Wells, Edward Car~enter, and Whitman (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 123-124), cotextualize the evocatIon of Savonarola.
The brief discussion of this last example implies that the particular situation or
setting into which an allusion is embedded mayaiso cotextualize the intertextual
link. Although this type of structural embedding remains somewhat vague in
most. c~ses, it can be a productive interpretive tool if the definition of setting is
~ot hmlted to the actual time and place of an action or episode, but indudes its
mtellectual, social, and historical background and its general atmosphere and
mood. Thus, the emotionally charged love scene between Amory Blaine and
Isabelle Borges in This Side of Pa ra dis e possibly attributes respective features to
the popular song "Babes in the Woods" evoked in this situation (Fitzgerald
1920/1970, 69).
An especially interesting, but equally complex variant of lexical cotextualiza~ion occurs in allusion sequences. When, in Main Street, Blodgett College is
mtroduced as "still combating the recent heresies of Voltaire, Darwin, and
Robert Ingersoll" (Lewis 1920, 1), it is not only the "recent heresies" and the
ironic historical perspective that cotextualize the three onomastic allusions;
moreover, the signals cotextualize themselves mutually, with their additive arrang~ment and the a?sence of. differentiating transitions suggesting a certain
conslstency of evocatlve potential. Elaborate sequences of this sort are a prominent featur~ o~ the all~sive system of This Side of Paradise: "One week, through
general cunoslty, he mspected the private libraries of his dassmates and found
Sloan~' s as typical as any: sets of Kipling, O. Henry, J ohn Fox, J r., and Richard
Hardmg Davis; 'What Every Middle-Aged Woman Ought to Know,' 'The Spell
of the Yukon'; a 'gift' copy of James Whitcomb Riley [ ... ]." (Fitzgerald 1920/
19~0, 106) Lexical c~textualization, in this case with a strong ironic undertone
owmg to the quotatIOn marks (around "'gift'" copy) and the plural references
("se~s o~") to the works of such truly productive writers as Kipling, Fox, and
Da~ls, fIgural cotextualization, in this case the double affiliation with Amory
Blatne and Fred Sloane and their different attitudes toward the authors evoked
and intertextual cotextualization by means of sequencing signals, are combinecl
to establish an intricate network of cotextualizations. That the last form of
cotextualization is largely dependent on the allusive competence of the reader
and may instigate inadequate readings if the evocative potential of allusions thus
156
u. Hebel
157
The type of the 'reading protagonist' cannot be discussed again at this point; among the large
number ofstudies on this time-honored phenomenon of literary history, the following recent
studies des erve special mention and provide further bibliographical references: Wolpers 1986;
Stckrath 1984; Wuthenow 1980.
158
U. Hebel
*
The notion of allusion as bilaterally directed, evocative signal of intertextual
relationships and the sequence of descriptive categories (manifestation, localization, dimension( s) of reference, modification, semantic meaning, cotextualization, function) aim at a more dynamic and comprehensive understanding of this
prominent feature of intertextually organized (narrative) texts. The approach
offered is intended to replace atomistic interpretations of single allusions and to
induce the analysis of allusive systems at large, not only with regard to their
intratextual functions, but with special regard to their significance for the understandability of texts and to their role in the process of metatextual positioning.
The examples presented evidence that allusional studies with a firm footing in
intertextual theory may not only (re)constitute a text's verticality, but mayaIso
allow for the study of a text's metatextual dimension as manifestation of its
active participation in the ongoing dialogic process of literary history .
Bibliography
1. Primary Sources (alluding
te~ts only)
Boswell, J ames
1922
The Life of Samuel Johnson. Ed. element Shorter. Vol. 7. New York: Doubleday,
Page.
Cather, Willa
1925/1938 The Professor's House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cheever, John
1969/1979 Bullet Park. New York: Knopf.
Crane, Stephen
1895/1982 The Red Badge of Courage: An Episode of the American Civil War. Ed. Henry
Binder. New York: Norton.
Eliot, T. S.
Collected Poems 1909-1962. London: Faber & Faber.
1963
It is at least worth considering whether the alleged preference of writing in the so-called 'realist'
vein for metonymy (as compared to the alleged preference of writing in the so-called 'romantic'
vein for metaphor) manifests itself in the abundance of metonymie - explicit - allusions in the
novel of manners and in texts by authors in its vein (e. g., Fitzgerald, Lewis, and even Cheever
and U pdike). Cf. J akobson 1970 and Lodge 1977, 79- 81 concerning the dichotomy 'realist writing/metonymy' vs. 'romantic writing/metaphor.'
159
Ellison, Ralph
1947
Invisible Man. New York: Signet.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott
1920/1970 This Side of Paradise. New York: Scribner's.
1925/1953 The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribner's.
1933/1961 Tender is the Night. New York: Scribner's.
1978
The Notebooks. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Fowles, John
1969
The French Lieutenant's Woman. London: Cape.
Hemingway, Ernest
1926/1954 The Sun Also Rises. New York: Scribner's.
1929/1957 A Farewell to Arms. New York: Scribner's.
Howells, William Dean
1885/1971 The Rise ofSilas Lapham. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
J oyce, J ames
1916/1976 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lewis, Sinclair
1920
Main Street. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
1922
Babbitt. New York: Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich.
Nabokov, Vladimir
1955/1958/
1970
The Annotated Lolita. Ed. Alfred Appel. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1962
Pale Fire. New York: Putnam.
Oates, J oyce Carol
1968
Expensive People. New York: Vanguard.
Orwell, George
1949/1984 Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg.
Poe, Edgar Allan
1839/1978 "The Fall of the House of Usher." In Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe. Vol.2:
Tales and Sketches 1831-1842. Ed. Thomas O. Mabbott. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap
Press, 392-422.
Pynchon, Thomas
1966
The Crying of Lot 49. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Salinger,J. D.
1951/1964 The Catcher in the Rye. New York: Bantam.
Shepard, Sam
1974/1981 The Tooth ofCrime. In Sam Shepard, Seven Plays. New York: Bantam.
U pdike, J ohn
1960
Rabbit, Run. New York: Knopf.
1968
Couples. New York: Knopf.
1971
Rabbit Redux. New York: Knopf.
1981
Rabbit is Rich. New York: Knopf.
2. Secondary Sources
Abrams, M. H.
1981
A Glossary of Literary Terms. Fourth Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anderegg, J ohannes
1977
Fiktion und Kommunikation: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der Prosa. Second Edition.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bachtin, Michail M.
1979
Die sthetik des Wortes. Ed. Rainer Grbel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
160
U. Hebel
Barthes, Roland
1968
"L'effet de ft!el." Communications 11, 84-89.
Bell, Robert F.
1981
"Metamorphoses and Missing Halves: Allusions in Paul Theroux's Picture Palace."
Critique 22.3, 17-30.
Ben-Porat, Ziva
1973
"The Poetics of Allusion." Diss. University of California, Berkeley.
1976
"The Poetics of Literary Allusion." PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and
Theory of Literature 1,105-128.
1979
"The Poetics of Allusion - A Text Linking Device in Different Media of Communication."ln Seymour Chatman et al., eds. A Semiotic Landscape: Proceedings of
the First Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies Milan, June
1974. The Hague: Mouton, 588-593.
Beugnot, Bernard
1976
"Un aspect textuel de la ft!ception critique: La citation." Oeuvres & Critiques 1.2,
5-19.
Bloom, Harold
1975
A Map of Misreading. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Broich, Ulrich
1985
"Formen der Markierung von Intertextualitt." In Broich/Pfister, 31-47.
Broich, Ulrich/pfister, Manfred, eds.
1985
Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Brownson, Robert Charles
1976
"Techniques of Reference, Allusion, and Quotation in Thomas Mann's Doktor
Faustus and William Gaddis' The Recognitions." Diss. University of Colorado,
Boulder.
Bruce, Don
"Bibliographie annotee: Ecrits sur l'intertextualite." Texte 2, 217-258.
1983
Buder, Guido
Titel und Text: Information ""rtd Wirkung des italienischen Novellentitels (G. Verga,
1982
L. Pirandello, A. Moravia) vor und whrend der Tex tlek tre. Rheinfelden:
Schuble.
I
Burgess, William
..
1903/1968 The Bible in Shakespeare: A Study of the Relation of the Works of William Shakespeare to the Bible with Numerous Parallel Passages, Quotations, References, Paraphrases, andAllusions. New York: Haskell.
Clark, Eva Lee
1931/1974 Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare's Plays: A Study of the Early Court Revels and
Personalities of the Times. New York: Payson.
Coffler, Gail H.
1985
Melville's Classical Allusions: A Comprehensive Index and Glossary. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood.
Conte, Gian Biagio
1974
Memoria dei poeti e sistema letterario. Catullo, Virgilio, Ovidio, Lucano. Turin:
Einaudi. [Engl. trans!. 1986 by Charles Segal, The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and
Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell UP].
Coombs, James H.
1984
"Allusion Defined and Explained." Poetics 13,475-488.
Cuddon, J. A.
1977
A Dictionary of Literary Terms. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday.
Eliot, T. S.
1932
"Tradition and the Individual Talent (1917)." In T. S. Eliot. Selected Essays. London:
Faber & Faber, 13-22.
161
Eykman, Christoph
1978
"Erfunden oder Vor-gefunden? Zur Integration des Auerfiktionalen in die epische
Fiktion." Neophilologus 62,319-334.
Fish, Stanley
1970
"Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics." New Literary History 2,123-162.
Frye, Northrop/Sheridan Baker/George Perkins
1985
The Harper Handbook to Literature. New York: Harper.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre. Paris: Seuil.
Giustiniani, Vito R.
"Zitat und literarische Anspielung in der modernen italienischen Lyrik." In Fritz
1965
Schalk, ed. Ideen und Formen: Festschrift fr Hugo Friedrich. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 105-142.
Hebel, Udo J.
1989 a
Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical
Studies. New York: Greenwood.
1989 b
Romaninterpretation als Textarchologie: Untersuchungen zur Intertextualitt am
Beispiel von F. Scott FitzgeraIds This Side of Paradise. Mainzer Studien zur
Amerikanistik, 23. Frankfurt, Bern, New York: Lang.
Hhler, Gertrud
1969
Unruhige Gste: Das Bibelzitat in Wilhelm Raabes Roman. Bonn: Bouvier.
Hoek,LeoH.
1981
La marque du titre: Dispositifs semiotiques d'une pratique textuelle. The Hague:
Mouton.
Holman, Hugh
1980
A Handbook to Literature. Fourth Edition. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill.
Inge, M. Thomas, ed.
1978-1981 A Handbook ofAmerican Popular Culture. 3 vols. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.
Iser, Wolfgang
1984
Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie sthetischer Wirkung. Second Edition. Mnchen: Fink.
Jakobson, Roman
1970
"Two Aspects of Language: Metaphor and Metonymy." In Vernon W. Gras, ed.
European Literary Theory and Practice: From Existentialism to Structuralism. New
York: DelI, 119-129.
J au, Hans Robert
1970
Literaturgeschichte als Provokation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Jensch, Fritz
1925
Wilhelm Raabes Zitatenschatz. Wolfenbttel: Heckner.
J ohnson, Anthony L.
1976
"Allusion in Poetry." PTL: AJournal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1, 579-587.
J ohnson, Oakley C.
1928
"Literary Allusion and Reference in Contemporary American Literature. " Diss.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Klotz, Volker
1976
"Zitat und Montage in neuerer Literatur und Kunst." Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 60,259-277.
Kristeva, J ulia
1968
"Problemes de la structuration du texte." In Theorie d'ensemble. Paris: Seuil,
297-316.
1969
"Le texte dos." In Julia Kristeva. Semeiotike: Recherches po ur une semanalyse. Paris:
.Seuil,113-142.
162
U. Hebel
Lachmann, Renate
1980
"Intertextualitt in der Lyrik (zu Majakovskij 'Oda Revoljucii')." Wien er Slawistischer Almanach 5, 5-23.
1983
"Intertextualitt als Sinnkonstitution: Andrej Belyjs Petersburg und die 'fremden'
Texte." Poetica 15,66-107.
1984
"Ebenen des Intertextualittsbegriffs." In Stierle/Warning, 133-138.
Lemke, Gerd
Untersuchungen zu Zitat und Zitiermethode im Werk des Literaturkritikers Albert
1973
Beguin. Bern, Frankfurt: Lang.
Lodge, David
1977
The Modes 0/ Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology 0/ Literature. London: Arnold.
Ludwig, Hans-Werner, ed.
1982
Arbeitsbuch Romananalyse. Tbingen: Narr.
Metschies, Michael
1966
Zitat und Zitierkunst in Montaignes Essais. Geneve: Droz.
Meyer, Herman
1967
Das Zitat in der Erzhlkunst: Zur Geschichte und Poetik des europischen Romans.
Second Edition. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Morawski, Stefan
1970
"The Basic Functions of Quotation." In A. J. Greimas/Roman Jakobson, eds. Sign,
Language, Culture. The Hague: Mouton, 690-705.
Motiramani, Mahesh
1983
Die Funktion der literarischen Zitate und Anspielungen in Aleksander Solzenicyns
Prosa (1962-1968). Frankfurt: Lang.
Nadel, Alan
"Translating the Past: Literary Allusions as Covert Criticism." Georgia Review 36,
1982
639-651.
N athan, Jacques
1969
Citations, re/erences et allusions de Marcel Proust dans A la recherche du temps
perdu. Paris: Nizet.
Neumann, Peter Horst
1980
"Das Eigene und das Fremde: ber die Wnschbarkeit einer Theorie des Zitierens."
Akzente 27, 292-305. ..
Nichol, J ohn W.
1949/1950 "Melville's 'Soiled' Fish of the Sea." American Literature 21,338-339.
Oppenheimer, Fred Eugene
1961
"Literary Allusion in the Novels ofTheodor Fontane." Diss. University ofWisconsin.
Perri, Carmela
1979
"Allusion Studies: An International Annotated Bibliography, 1921-1977." Style 13,
178-225.
1978
"On Alluding." Poetics 7, 289-307.
1984
"Knowing and Playing: The Literary Text and the Trope Allusion." American Imago 41,117-128.
Pfister, Manfred
1985
"Konzepte der Intertextualitt." In Broich/Pfister, 1-30.
Piett, Bettina
Die Kunst der Allusion: Formen literarischer Anspielungen in den Romanen Theodor
1986
Fontanes. Kln: Bhlau.
I
163
Plett, Heinrich F.
1985
"Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In Broich/Pfister, 78-98.
1988
"The Poetics of Quotation. "In J. S. Petfi/T. Olivi, eds. Von der verbalen Konstitution zur symbolischen Bedeutung - From Verbal Constitution to Symbolic M eaning.
Hamburg: Buske, 313-334.
Pollak, Vivian R.
1974
"Emily Dickinson's Literary Allusions." Essays in Literature 1, 54-68.
Preisendanz, Wolfgang
1984
"Die Muse Belesenheit: Transtextualitt in Wielands 'Neuem Amadis.'" Modern
Language Notes 99, 539-553.
Preminger, Alex et al. , eds.
1974
Princeton Encyclopedia 0/ Poetry and Poetics. Enlarged Edition. Princeton, N. J. :
Princeton UP.
1986
The Princeton Handbook 0/ Poetic Terms. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton UP.
Rathjen, Friedhelm
1988
" ... schlechte Augen": James Joyce bei Arno Schmidt vor Zettels Traum. Ein annotierender Kommentar. Mnchen: Text und Kritik.
Riffaterre, Michael
1978
Semiotics 0/ Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
1979
"La syllepse intertextuelle." Pohique 40, 496-501.
1980
"Syllepsis." CriticalInquiry 6, 625-638.
Rodi, Fritjof
"Anspielungen: Zur Theorie der kulturellen Kommunikationseinheiten." Poetica 7,
1975
115-134.
Rothe, Arnold
1986
Der literarische Titel: Funktionen, Formen, Geschichte. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
Rudat, Wolfgang E. H.
1985
The Mutual Commerce: Masters 0/ Classical Allusion in English and American Literature. Heidelberg: Winter.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1969
Cours de linguistique generale. Eds. Charles BallylAlbert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
Schaar, Claes
"Vertical Context Systems. "In Hakan Ringbom, ed. Style and Text: Studies Pre1975
sen ted to Nils Enkvist. Stockholm: Sprakfarlaget, 146-157.
"Linear Sequence, Spatial Structure, Complex Sign, and Vertical Context System."
1978
Poetics 7, 377-388.
The Full Voic'd Quire Below: Vertical Context Systems in Paradise Lost. Lund:
1982
Gieerup.
Schmid, Wolf
1983
"Sinnpotentiale der diegetischen Allusion: Aleksandr Puskins Posthalternovelle und
ihre Prtexte." In Schmid/Stempel, 141-187.
Schmid, Wolf/Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds.
1983
Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualitt. Wien: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.
Schulte-Middelich, Bernd
1985
"Funktionen intertextueller Textkonstitution." In Broich/Pfister, 197-242.
Schweikle, Gnther/Irmgard Schweikle
1984
Metzler Literatur Lexikon. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Searle, John R.
1969
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy 0/ Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Simon, Hans-Ulrich
1984
"Zitat." In Klaus KanzoglAchim Masser, eds. Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturgeschichte. Vol. 4. Second Edition. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1049-1081.
164
U. Hebel
Stempel, Wolf-Dieter
1983
"Intertextualitt und Rezeption." In Schmid/Stempel, 85-109.
Stierle, Karlheinz
1984
"Werk und Intertextualitt." In Stierle/Warning, 139-150.
Stierle, Karlheinz/Rainer Warning, eds.
1984
Das Gesprch. Mnchen: Fink.
Stckrath, Jrn
1984
"Der literarische Held als Leser: Ein historisch-typologischer Prospekt." In Michael
Krejci/Karl Schuster, eds. Literatur-Sprache-Unterricht: Festschrift for Jacob Lehman. Bamberg: Bayerische Verlagsanstalt, 102-108.
Tetzeli von Rosador, Elisabeth
1973
"Kunst im Werke George Eliots: Anspielungen, Figuren, Thematik." Diss. Mnchen.
Thornton, Weldon
1968
Allusions in Ulysses: An Annotated List. Chapel Hill, N. C.: University of North
Carolina Press.
Voigts, Manfred
1981
"Das Zitat vors Gericht!" Akzente 28,357-366.
Voss, Lieselotte
1985
Literarische Praefiguration dargestellter Wirklichkeit bei Fontane: Zur Zitatstruktur
seines Romanwerkes. Mnchen: Fink.
Weisenburger, Steven
1988
A Gravity's Rainbow Companion: Sources and Contexts for Pynchon's Novel.
Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press.
Wheeler, Michael
1979
The Art ofAllusion in Victorian Fiction. London: Macmillan.
Wilpert, Gero von
1979
Sachwrterbuch der Literatur. Sixth Edition. Stuttgart: Krner.
Wolpers, Theodor, ed.
1986
Gelebte Literatur in der Literatur: Studien zu Erscheinungsformen und Geschichte
eines literarischen Motivs. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wuthenow, Ralph-Rainer
1980
Im Buch die Bcher oder: Der Held als Leser. Frankfurt: Europische Verlagsanstalt.
I
T
THEODOR VERWEYEN and GUNTHER WITTING
The Cento
A Form of Intertextuality from Montage to Parody
Aksit Gktrk
.
.
Inmemonam
1.
Undoubtedly, also terms have their heyday. Some economic scientists may deny
that something like it is possible, but at least as far as "intertextuality" is concerned it can be said that it was talked into being. If you trace the development
from Bakhtin's concept of dialogism to Kristeva's notion of "intertextualite,"
something about this procedure becomes all too dear. Rolf Kloepfer, for
example, describes three stages of such a development: at first it is held
"da ein fremder Text durch Zitat, Anspielung oder zumindest Indiz (auf allen
Ebenen der jeweiligen Kodierung [... J)" has to be actually evoked; subsequently one argues "da sich sowieso in jedem Text sein Grundmuster
(z. B. 'realistischer Roman' oder 'Roman' berhaupt), seine Epoche oder gar
bestimmte 'abendlndische Traditionen' 'einschreiben"'; finally the text is
only perceived as "parole der jeweiligen (Gattungs-, Reihen-, Kultur-)Sprache"
(Kloepfer 1980/1982).
Yet such semantic branching demands its price: not only does one easily lose
sight of descriptive properties of the term itself, but it happens that its apparent
conceptual modernity or universality makes one forget terminological tools
which traditionalliterary criticism has long held in store. More than that: Just as
Nietzsche' s universal application of the term metaphor rather inhibited than
furthered a theorization of the metaphor so Bakhtin's reception and its consequences did not yield what one could have expected: a multitude of dose analyses of the elementary strategies of textual references to other texts. For when
intertextuality is equated with literariness or even becomes the mark of textuality as such (cf. Beaugrande/Dressler 1981), hardly any interest is left for such
literature which does not belong to the canon of 'great works'. Such talk has
provoked reactions, doubtlessly. Today it has become almost topical to demand
a new terniinological precision. Whether this can be accomplished, is yet to be
seen. It may weIl be that, as Renate Lachmann surmises, the term will be "vor-
~
166
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
The Cento
167
2.
A short historical survey shall now introduce to the intertextual phenomenon of
the cento. This survey is necessarily cursory as comprehensive scholarly studies
are still desiderata. Therefore, one can start with the Poetices Libri Septem (1561)
by Julius Caesar Scaliger. This author writes:
3 Other extensive explanations can be found in Benet (1948), Schmid (1965), Trger (1986).
Herzog's allegations are contradicted by the assertions of his teacher Manfred Fuhrmann in his
Konstanz inaugurallecture of 1968 (Fuhrmann 1969, 16-20).
5 Fritz Nies also mainly relies on this anthology for his explication (Nies 1978).
168
The Cento
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
HAud absimiles Parodiis, quos Centones vocant. Deducitur enim sensus alius ab sensu pristino
versuum: hoc parodiam refert. quorum versuum membra hinc inde collecta quum assuantur,
Rapsodia: nomen repra:sentant. atque iccirco Centones appella~i sunt a cento~ib~s, ~~ib~s fiunt
stragula. Tale apud Ausonium poema valde ingeniosum & lepldum, ex frustls Vuglhams coagmentaturn [.] Tale etiam Proba: poetria: Christiana:: cui ab opere Centone cognomen factum est.
(Scaliger 1964, 47)
The rules for writing centos here are expressly formulated following those two
authors who had become models in this literary vein: Ausonius, who corresponded with Symmachus, and Proba who lived around 322 to 370 A. D. The
Christian Proba's biblical cento was written in the second half of the fourth
century, at about the same time as the pagan Ausonius' s Cen~o nupti~lis, though
possibly a few years earlier. Of course, these are not the earllest speclmens.
Older models go back as far as the last third of the second century A. D., to
name, for example, Lucian's epithalamium from verses by Pindar, Hesiod, and
Anacreon (cf. Helm 1906, 255 f.), which is spoken by the grammarian Histiaios
in the satirical dialogue Symposium, written c. 160-165 A. D. (Lucian 1972,
159 f.). Also, there exist Homeric centos in which a mythological occurrence
such as Hercules's confrontation with Cerberus is narrated in verses borrowed
from the Iliad and the Odyssey. Herbert Hunger mentions as the characteristic
features of these centos:
1. Alle Verse sind (mit geringfgigen nderungen) aus Homer entnommen. 2. Niemals werden
zwei oder mehr Verse hintereinander entlehnt [ ... ] 3. Durch die neue Zusammensetzung verlieren die Verse die inhaltliche Beziehung zu ihrer ursprnglichen Umgebung, sie werden verfremdet [... ] 4. Das Ergebnis ist ein mehr oder weniger gelungenes Mosaik aufgrund einer neuen
Vorzeichnung, d. h. ein neues Thema. (~:78, 98 f.)
In its play with frivolous defamiliarization this epigram from late antiquity
seems to resemble closely that epithalamium by Ausonius which, according to
Herzog (1975, 11), has become the model for the 'obscene centos' in literary
his tory from Latin antiquity up to the eighteenth century. Not the least reason
for this is that it is patched together from several verses by Virgi1. 6 Ausonius's
model of the Virgil cento has been used for diverse purposes. Because of his
theoretical exposition in the dedicatory letter to the Cento nuptialis (Schenkl in:
Ausonius 1883, 140f.; Prete in: Ausonius 1978, 159-161f the Virgilian form
provided "eine Freisetzung [... ] zur Paraphrase neuer Themen, die beliebig
gewhlt werden [konnten]" (Herzog 1975, 7). And because of its artistic potential to group "ursprnglich inkohrente Bedeutungsfragmente zu einer neuen
Konsistenz" (Herzog 1975, 4) it has continually provoked competing imitations. Thus Delepierre can present 19 centos in the manner of Virgil by Laelius
and 32 by Julius Capilupus in his anthology Capiluporum Carmina. Here one
can find an "epitaphe-centon" as well as a "prosopopee de Rome". Eulogies of
cities and mansions change into panegyric centos on popes, cardinals, and princes. Praises of virtue and calls for peace alternate with occasional centos on the
nomination of a cardinal or even the election as pope. Besides, there are
Rollengedichte in which Virgil hirns elf, for example, appeals to Cosimo I de'
Medici "en vers de Virgile." A most artful attempt of a special kind is a cento by
Julius Capilupus in which the Lord's Prayer finds itself transformed into Virgilian verses. In this case each single line is made up of two half-lines which are
culled from the most diverse places in the Aeneid and the Georgica 8 ; they are
joined almost imperceptibly, with only minor adjustments, strict1y following
Ausonius's cento theory:
Later Homeric centos such as die epigram by Leo the Philosopher (5th c. A. D.),
to be found in the Greek Anth,plogy (Book IX, No. 361), do still imitate their
famous models rather closely - which were learned by rote by pupils even in late
antiquity - but they also use frivolous procedures of defamiliarization with an
obscene intention. The epigram reads:
MfrtEQ EflT] MOfll1'tEQ, aXl1VEU eUflOV EXOUOU,
ALl1V UXeOflaL EAXO~, flE Qo'to~ Oil'tUOEV aVT]Q
vux'tU eh' OQCPVULl1V, 'tE e' EOUOL QomL UAAOL,
YUflVO~ U'tEQ x6Que6~ 'tE XUL aOJtLo~, OU' EXEV EyxO~.
xv ' UXEeEQflaVel1l;LcpO~ ULflU'tL' uutaQ EXEL'tU
oiiQ6v tE XQOEl1XEV a:Jtllflova 'tE ALUQ6v tE.
Here, as one can surmise with Hunger (1978, 99), we are concerned with a case
of parodic quoting. In the text, the first word of the sixth verse, deviating from
Homer, is exchanged for an obscene homonym ("gale" for "liquid") and it is
used at the same time as the point of the epigram.
169
7
8
The first editor of the Cento nuptialis, Carl Schenkl, meticulously proved the borrowings, especially from theAeneid (cf. Ausonius 1883, 140-146; see also the recent edition by Sextus Prete
[Ausonius 1978, 159-169]); for the quotations from the eclogues see Herzog (1975,9).
It is also included in the Capiluporum Carmina (cf. Delepierre 1874,223).
An analysis renders the following results: line 1 = Ae. 5.80 + Ae. 7.558; 2 = Ae. 11.786 + Ae.
6.247; 3 = Ae. 1.609 + Ae. 12.808; 4 = Ae. 1.279 + Ae. 1.609; 5 = Ae. 8.181 + Ae. 6.556; 6 = Ae.
2.691 + Ae.1.330; 7 =Ae.l1.166 + Ae. 6.63; 8 =Ae. 1.250 + G. 4.219; 9 =Ae. 3.504 + Ae. 1.630;
10 = G. 1.72 + Ae. 4.113; 11 = Ae. 6.365 + Ae. 2.691.
~
i
170
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
The Cento
171
As representatives for the history of the cento, the Virgilian centos by the two
Capilupi have been dealt with somewhat extensively. The his tory of the cento
itself is yet unwritten. Its post-classical and post-medieval parts can be said to
begin with the cento by Albertino Mussato which is made of distichs from
Ovid's Tristia (Lamacchia 1958, 216? It had its heyday in the sixteenth and
early seventeenth centuries, in the era of Neo-Latin poetry when other poets
besides Virgil were ransacked, too. An almost random example in this respect is
Lanx Satura sive cento in Christogoniam, published in 1657 by Daniel Georg
Morhof, who additionally borrowed verses from Statius and Claudius (Delepierre 1875,303). In a history of this extremely artificial way of writing external references, too, would playamajor role as, for example, in a satire on Louis
XlV, Le Justin Moderne, anonymously published in 1677, which borrowed
fromJustinian (Delepierre 1875, 300), or in the cento anthology in the manner of
theAeneid by Andreas Fabri, published in 1609, in wh ich the author, disguised
as Cassandra, addresses the F rench king Henri IV of Navarra (F abri 1609, 9 -44,
45 -63 )10. One would, moreover, have to mention such important writings as the
politico-theoretical treatise Politica by Justus Lipsius of 1589, the commentaries
in Julius Wilhelm Zincgref's emblem book of 1619, or The Anatomy of Melancholy of 1621, in the epistle to the reader of which the author Robert Burton,
impersonating the younger Democritus, characterizes the work's design in the
following topical images:
munera Christi." (Proba 1888, 570 [v. 23J)11: "I would like to demonstrate that
Virgil wrote about Christ's sacred gifts." This programme of spiritualization of
pagan literature is well-known in the history of allegorical expression. Yet
Hieronymus commented harshly on some of the Virgilian verses adapted by
Proba: "Puerilia sunt haec et circulatorum ludo similia" (Hieronymus 1910,454
[ep. LIIIJ)12: "These are mere trifles and they resemble the diversion of mountebanks."
Yet this verdict is only one side of the appropriation of pagan antiquity which
H. Hunger has characterized with reference to the biblical centos by the bishop
Patrikios and by the empress Eudokia, the daughter of an Athenian professor
and wife to Theodosios 11 (408-450). The reason for their efforts he sees in the
authors' conviction,
da die von der absoluten berlegenheit der homerischen Epen ber alle andere griechische
Dichtung berzeugten Autoren als gute und geistig rege Christen die Heilsgeschichte in einen
mglichst kostbaren Rahmen fassen wollten.
And he compares these endeavours to the "sekundren Gold- und Silberrahmungen vieler Ikonen der orthodoxen Welt [ ... J, deren materieller Wert
den knstlerischen zumeist bertrifft" (Hunger 1978, 100f.)13. This interpretation is obviously pertinent to the biblical centos in Byzantine literature culled
from Homer and also to the Cento Probae, which is held to be their model
(Smolak 1979,31). It is even more appropriate, when we come to the era of the
"imitatio veterum," if we look at, for example, the Virgilian Lord's Prayer by
Julius Capilupus and the many biblical cento epics, namely Paulus Didymus's
Josephiados libri VIII (Leipzig 1581), Ulrich Bollinger's Moseidos libri IX
(Tbingen 1608), or Alexander Rosaeus's Vergilii evangelisantis Christiados
libri XIII (Amsterdam 1638). When it comes to literary imitation, it is less important for the cento to 'ennoble' pagan material, which Hunger names another
function of the appropriation of antiquity (Hunger 1978, 101). The prevalent
idea here is the 'precious framing' of biblical simplicity and prose.
In the long tradition of cento writing, the authority of antique models has
rarely been doubted or questioned. It may happen in times of ideological
reorientation, as is evidenced by Hieronymus's reservation. For different
reasons altogether Montaigne, writing in the Renaissance spirit of introspection
and self-representation, distanced hirns elf in his Essais from the writing of centos and their implicit approbation of the "language of authority" (Bakhtin):
As a good housewife out of divers fleeces weaves one piece of cloth, a bee gathers wax and honey
out of many flowers, and makes a new bundle of all, Floriferis ut apes in saltibus omnia libant [as
be es in flowery glades sip from each cup], I have laboriously collected this cento out of divers
writers. (Burton 1932, 1: 24f.)
The history of the cento would Icertainly be distorted if one would leave the
present sketch as it iso Of special import is the aforementioned Cento Probae as it
is to be seen in connection with the 'two-realm theory' which divides poetry
into worldly and sacred poems. One could cite the testimony of Erasmus of
Rotterdam in this context. Before J. C. Scaliger, he laid down in his adage "Farcire Centones" the catalogue of authorities and model texts which are requisite
for cento writing:
Exstant adhuc, 6JllJQOXEV'tQOJVE~, quorum meminit et divus Hieronymus, et Virgiliocentones
Probae mulieris, et Centon nuptialis Ausonii, qui legern etiam ejus carminis tradit. (Erasmus
1961, 542D)
10
11
12
13
This edition is an excellent text to work with because of its complete references to the verses
borrowed from Virgil.
Hieronymus refers in his verdict, for example, to the Probae Cento 403 (= Aeneid 1.664) and 624
(= Aeneid 2.650). His judgement is part of a lengthy disquisition which gives evidence of his
intimate literary knowledge of this tradition: "quasi non legerimus Homerocentonas et Vergiliocentonas ac non sic etiam Maronem sine Christo possimus dicere Christianum, quia scripserit [ .. .J." Bere follow the quotations from Proba's cento and the verdict.
This opinion does not, of course, invalidate Herzog's interpretation of the "erbaulichen
Motivierung" of the Cento Probae (Herzog 1975, 46-51).
172
The Cento
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
De ma part il n'est rien que je veuille moins faire. Je ne dis les autres, sinon pour d'autant plus me
dire. Cecy ne touche pas des centons qui se publient pour centons : et j' en ai veu de tres-ingenieux
en mon temps, entre autres un, sous le nom de Capilupus, outre les antiens. Ce sont des esprits
qui se font voir et par ailleurs et par la, comme Lipsius en ce docte et laborieux tissu de ses
Politiques (Montaigne 1924,2:100 [1,26]).
Laurence Sterne, though, put the cento to the severest test, the test of the
ridicule, in his Tristram Shandy. As Herman Meyer could show in an inquiry
into Sterne's art of quotation (Meyer 1968, 72-93), this author pilfered the pilferer Robert Burton, not desisting from writing a 'stolen' philippic against literary thievery (cf. book 5, chapter 1), in order to indict plagiarism by amassing
plagiarisms. Meyer adds: "In doing so, [Sterne] had every right to expect that the
educated among his readers would recognize his source and savor the persiflage
of his jesting plagiarism." (Meyer 1968, 90 f.) The writing of centos, which was
based on authoritative quoting, is being erroneously identified with plagiarism
and thus comes und er severe strain.
the author, in this case all of the quotations and all of the text are placed, to cite
M. M. Bakhtin, "in spttisch-frhliche Anfhrungszeichen" (Bachtin 1979,
314). The way in which here "Worte gleichsam widerwillig zum Ausdruck eines
ihnen bisher ganz fremden Sinnes gezwungen erscheinen" (Gerber 1961, 2:370;
cf. Verweyen/Witting 1979, 152 f.), i. e. in which syntagms and sentences of the
pre-texts are disposed with as set pieces, aims at debunking without expressing a
serious alternative. This strategy only aims at the comic imitation of the models
and at their disparagement. Texts for which such a strategy is constitutive are
completely deficient in an individual point of view (Witting 1985, 11). Their
parody closely resembles the epigram in the Greek Anthology mentioned above.
This may become even clearer if one considers the respective contexts of those
two poems. Weinert, a writer for the periodical Rote Fahne since 1924 and
member of the communist party since 1929, hinted at the reasons for hirn to
write the "Einheitsvolkslied" in his autobiographical essay "10 Jahre an der
Rampe" (1934):
Als ich nmlich das Brger- und Kleinbrgertum, das ich in meinem Umgang berhrte, wieder in
seiner ganzen feigen Arroganz und Verlogenheit sich restaurieren sah, reagierte ich mit Ha. Ich
fhlte das Verlangen, diese patriotischen Gehrcke, die sich schon wieder, kaum, da das Blut
der Arbeiter getrocknet war, ffentlich mit den Emblemen der Reaktion versammeln durften, bis
auf die Unterhosen auszuziehen, um sie dem Spott der Welt preiszugeben. Ich konzipierte
Gedichtchen, in welchen ich sie lcherlich machte. (Weinert 1964, 120)14
3.
So far it can be said that the traditional definitions of the cento as a special form
of poetry and epic can no longer be upheld. Cento is not a generic term but an
ecriture - such as parody, travesty, contrafacture, and pastiche - which can be
realized in a lyric and in an epic form as weIl as in the prose of political treatises
and the literary essay, even in dramatic form.
This ecriture consists in the selec.t:ion of sentences or syntagms from one or
several texts and transferring the,m unalteredly into a new text with a different
topic. With this definition, of course, the whole range of cento devices is not at
all completely described, as can b'e seen not only in Sterne's case but also in two
poems by Edwin Bormann and Erich Weinert (cf. Appendix). In 1885, Bormann
published a "Goethe-Quintessenz" which revels in citational references to
Goethe. His sources are "Der Zauberlehrling," "Der Sieger," "Kennst du das
Land, wo die Zitronen blhn," "Der Fischer," "Rechenschaft," "Der Knig von
Thule," "Hier sind wir versammelt zu lblichem Tun," and above all both parts
of "Faust," as weIl as "Iphigenie auf Tauris, " "Clavigo," and "Torquato Tasso."
But this reveIling is practiced tongue in cheek. Erich Weinert's "Einheitsvolkslied" of 1924 adapts common and popular verses from folklore and akin sources
such as Matthias Claudius's "Mein Neujahrslied," Ernst Moritz Arndt's "Das
Lied vom Feldmarschall," Joseph von Eichendorff's "Abschied" and "Das zerbrochene Ringlein," or Johann Gabriel Seidl's "Die Uhr," too.
Both texts realize essential conditions for the cento as a special form of intertextuality: citational reference to apre-text or a corpus of pre-texts plus the use
of extremely few linguistic means of the author to join the snippets. Yet contrary
to the cento procedure in Lipsius's Politica and Zincgref's emblem commentaries in wh ich the quotations are motivated by a politico-ethical perspective of
173
In his cento Weinert accordingly dissects with malicious intent those texts
which articulated the identity of a certain social dass. Once the deconstruction is
achieved he combines the scraps into a contrasting and comical puzzle so that
derision ensues.
The context in which Bormann's "Goethe-Quintessenz" appeared is significant in itself: is was the satirical periodical Fliegende Bltter published in
Munich (Bormann 1885, 190)15. This publication, founded in 1845, liked to
ridicule the revived classical myths and the national myth of the Weimar classicis m through the use of caricature, travesty, and parody. Bormann was a prolific
contributor. His poems were of the spirit indicated by the tide of the anthology
"Wenn Geedhe un Schiller gemietlich sin: klassischer Lorbeerkranz." Bakhtin called this abolishment of distance and the transposition of the sublime into
the realm of the intimate and familiar, within his theory of carnival, 'familiarization' (Bachtin 1969,49 f.).
In sum, it should have become clear that the kind of quotation as practiced by
the cento can serve two opposite purposes : on the one hand the constitutionl
formation and confirmationlendorsement of norms, on the other hand their
violation. The latter is achieved through the ridiculing of models held unique.
These different functions are exactly analogous to those of contrafacture and
14
15
In this very publication the "Einheitsvolkslied" is reprinted. - Cf. also VerweyenlWitting 1983,
118+294.
Cf. Verweyen/Witting 1983, 102f.+171 f.
174
The Cento
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
parody. It thus seems reasonable to define the cento as a special case of these
ecritures.
Yet both forms of cento writing do not exist side by side at all times. There is a
distinct historical development, as indicated in the tide of the present essay,
from the citation of authoritative writings towards their parody. Thus it seems
to be highly probable that the cento is representative for the whole process of
literary evolution, but in a sense different from the Russian formalists' notion.
The reordering of the material, which is such a central tenet of the formalist
school, here develops according to strict codes. The cento as contrafacture and
as parody belongs, following a systematic proposal of J. M. Lotman's, to an
aesthetics of identity (Lotman 1972, 410 ff.) and therefore it is not evolutionary
by itself.
Its significance thus lies not in the realm of formal innovation but in the
changing dominance of either variant. If it is true - and the literary scholarship of
the last two or three decades seems to point to it - that a process started in the
eighteenth century in which the growing autonomy of art was attended by a
growing historicization of the concept of form, then not only individual authors
and texts, but even more the principle and ideal of imitatio veterum itself lost
their exemplary status.
It is in the context of this development from a normative to a historical concept of allliterary models - to modify a hypothesis by H. Blumenberg (in Iser
1966, 461 ff.) - that emerges the idea of a literature from and against literature. In
contrast to this, a literary practice in the historical vein of the imitatio veterum
follows another principle which could be called "literature from literature and
with literature. "
As for the cento this means: It;l the course of imitation a collage of quotations
predominates which usurps the authority and splendor of the pre-texts and
thereby stabilizes their normativity. In the course of innovation the formal collage principle dominates the pre-texts quoted. This does not yet make the cento
innovative - and this may account for its lack of popularity - but it makes the
cento at least belong to those forms of writing which further the literary evolution.
I.
Bibliography
Ausonius
1883
175
176
The Cento
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
Kloepfer, Rolf
1980
"Einige literaturwissenschaftlich relevante Grundlagen und Anwendungen des
'dialogischen Prinzips'." Paper presented at the symposium "Dialogizitt in Prozessen literarischer Kommunikation" at the University of Konstanz, July 1980. - Rev.
version printed 1982 as: "Grundlagen des 'dialogischen Prinzips' in der Literatur."
In R. Lachmann, ed. Dialogizitt. Mnchen: W. Fink, 85-106.
Lachmann, Renate
1984
"Ebenen des Intertextualittsbegriffs." In K. Stierle/R. Warning, eds. Das Gesprch.
Mnchen: W. Fink, 133-138.
Lamacchia, Rosa
1958
"Dal1'arte allusiva al centone." Atene e Roma 3,193-216.
Lotman, Jurij M.
1972
Die Struktur literarischer Texte. Tr. R.-D. Keil. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Lucian
"Symposium." In M. D. Macleod, ed. Luciani Opera. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP,
1972
144-163.
Mackensen, Lutz
1953
Neues deutsches Wrterbuch. Laupheim: Pfahl-Verlag.
Meyer, Herman
1968
The Poetics of Quotation in the European Novel. Tr. Theodore & Yetta Ziolkowski.
Princeton, N.].: Princeton UP.
Montaigne, Michel de
1924-1927 Les Essais. Ed. Arthur Armaingaud. 6 vols. Paris: Louis Conrad.
Nies, Fritz
1978
"Centon. " In F. Nies/Jrgen Rehbein, eds. Genres mineurs: Texte zur Theorie und
Geschichte nichtkanonischer Literatur (vom 16.jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart).
Mnchen: W. Fink, 35.
Pfister, Manfred
1985
"Zur Systemreferenz." In U. Broich et al., eds. Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 52-58.
Plett, Heinrich F.
1985
"Sprachliche Konstituent~n einer intertextuellen Poetik." In U. Broich et al., eds.
Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen: Max
Niemeyer, 78-98.
Preminger, Alex, ed.
1974
Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, N. J. : Princeton UP.
Proba
1888
Probae Cento. Ed. Carolus Schenkl. Wien: F. Tempsky. (= CSEL 16, 568-609)
Scaliger, J ulius Caesar
1964
Poetices Libri Septem (1561). Ed. August Buck. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann
(facs. rpt.).
Schmid, W.
1965
"Cento." In Carl Andresen et al., eds. Lexikon der alten Welt. Zrich/Stuttgart:
Artemis, 565-566.
Shipley, Joseph T.
1970
Dictionary ofWorld Literary Terms: Forms, Techniques, Criticism. London: Allen &
Unwin, rev. ed.
Smolak, Kurt
1979
"Beobachtungen zur Darstellungsweise 10 den Homerzentonen." Jahrbuch der
sterreichischen Byzantistik 28, 29-49.
Trger, Claus, ed.
1986
VC:rterbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.
177
Appendix
Text 1
EDWIN BORMANN
Goethe-Quintessenz.
(Allen citatenbedrftigen Gemthern gewidmet)
Ihr naht euch wieder? In die Ecke, Besen!
Luft! Luft! Klavigo! Meine Ruh' ist hin.
Der Knig rief: Ich bin ein Mensch gewesen:
Das Ewig-Weibliche, das war mein Sinn.
Ein deutscher Mann mag keinen Franzen leiden,
Der and're hrt von allem nur das Nein.
Ich wei nicht, nur die Lumpe sind bescheiden,
Ein Werdender wird immer dankbar sein.
Mir graut's vor dir, der Kasus macht mich lachen,
Und Marmorbilder steh'n und seh'n mich an:
Wer fertig ist, dem ist nichts recht zu machen,
Der Morgen kam, khl bis an's Herz hinan.
Prophete rechts - mein Herz, was soll das geben?
Du sprichst ein groes Wort gelassen aus:
Das Wasser rauscht in's volle Menschenleben,
Ich denke dein, so oft er trank daraus.
Wenn ihr's nicht fhlt, ihr werdet's nicht erjagen:
Der Page lief, man sieht doch wo und wie.
Was hr' ich drauen? Frulein, darf ich's wagen?
Grau, theurer Freund, ist alle Theorie.
Heit mich nicht reden, schwankende Gestalten!
Man merkt die Absicht, dunkler Ehrenmann!
Durch Feld und Wald lat mir herein den Alten:
Ich kenne dich, du siehst mich lchelnd an.
Er sah ihn strzen, himmlisches Behagen!
Der Knabe kam und ward nicht mehr geseh'n.
Die Sonne sinkt, du mut es dreimal sagen Dies ist die Art, mit Hexen umzugeh'n.
Der Geist der Medizin ist leicht zu fassen,
Von Zeit zu Zeit seh' ich den Alten gern ...
Es mu sich dabei doch was denken lassen?!
Ergo bibambus! ist des Pudels Kern.
178
T. Verweyen, G. Witting
Text 2
ERICH WEINERT
Einheitsvolkslied
RICHARD
J.
SCHOECK
Intertextuality has its own history, although it is not yet written. 1 Some of its
glories are to be found in Virgil's employments of Homer, in the skilful games of
Ovid in his allusions to Virgil, Propertius and Horace: these constitute a great
deal more than simply poetry that is a comment on other texts ratherthan on
society.2 Here one can ci te the established books ofWilkinson (1945 and 1955),
of Hermann Frnkel(1956) on Ovid, now supplemented by the recent volume
edited by Charles Martindale (1988), which extends the reading of Ovidian influences into the Middle Ages and on to the twentieth century. In yet another
way, Leonard Barkan's recent explorati<;>n of metamorphosis (1986) offers a
challenging way to pursue intertextualities thematicaIly. In all of these Ovidian
studies, as weIl as Thomas M. Greene's (1982) investigation of imitation and
discovery in Renaissance poetry, and my own emphasis on the dimensions and
implications of imitatio in the Renaissance (1983), there is an emphasis on the
concept that imitatio (and with it intertextuality) may function not only as an
infra-literary operation but also as a mediation between the institutions of literature and society.3 There is, obviously enough, a dynamics of interrelating texts,
but we must also insist, along with Frnkel and others, that the poetic texts of
Ovid, Virgil, Horace, and Propertius also related to a societal context and its
pressures upon the conventions and institutions of literature. So too with Dante,
where intertextuality is a primary element in his poetics for examining his cultural past and revalidating tradition as a continuing process; and for Dante as for
the Roman poets, intertextuality was a comment both on other texts and on
society. In its quasi-archaeological diggings, modern scholarship continues to
reveal to us this in-and-out, or centripetal-centrifugal functioning, this beneath
By ahistory I mean both of the practice and of the theory. An important contribution to the
theory is the re cent article of H. F. Plett (1986 [pub!. 1988J). A contribution to the his tory of the
praxis is provided by Ottmar Ette (1985).
I am indebted to the books of L. P. Wilkinson on Latin poetry, as weil as the studies of Frnkel
and Martindale cited in the bibliography.
In the 1983. study cited I have tried to stress inter-art intertextualities as weH as the necessary
connections between literature and society. Imitatio, to stress the point, may function not only
as an infra-literary operation, and intertextuality must be studied as one extension of imitatio.
~
!
182
R. J. Schoeck
the letter mode of intertextuality. Like the work of archaeology which finds new
places to dig and always more artifacts to catalogue and correlate, intertextuality
is an exciting exploration of meanings that may once have been alive but now
may have become covered by dust and forgotten.
Erasmus was, I think - in ways and for reasons that I shall try to make clear the most intertextual of prose writers and perhaps also of poets, certainly of the
Renaissance; and his writing in turn became the source for such master intertextualists as Rabelais and Montaigne, whose pages glitter with the gold quarried
from theAdagia/Adages and Colloquies especially.4 The source, I have said: we
may think in terms of the river metaphor, which reverberates with the familiar
Petrarchan figure, or we may prefer the metaphor for one source of energy that
feeds another: that is, a fountain (which has its own rich his tory, and endless
intertextualities), or mirror, or (with thanks to Thomas Greene [1982]) the light
from Troy.5 All of these may be summoned up to illuminate the process of
supplying ideas and energies for subsequent writers; and all generate intertextualities.
I want therefore to focus on Erasmus in this present excursus of intertextuality.6
It is weIl known that all of Erasmus' writings are rich in allusion and quotation, in commentaries that do many things with works being studied or edited and medieval and Renaissance commentaries (wh ich may weIl be the most
characteristic and productive form for the scholarship of these centuries, with
each individual commentary having its own weavings of intertextualities going
out from the text being studied) - rich in general awareness of generic and canonical relationships, and in many o.f the questions about canon formation that
engage critical attention today. In one paper it is not possible to deal with all of
these points and questions ; and as weIl as the literary intertextualities there are
examples of cross-art intertextalities, and interdisciplinary approaches. 7 I
propose to work primarily with the Adages and to display Erasmus' awareness
and techniques of intertextuality, calling attention to intertextuality within certain selected adages and between adages and his other writings.
The tide for this paper, I should reveal at this point, comes from the introduction to the Adages, and the full sentence in the English translation reads:
A?d so to interweave a?ag.es deftly and a~propriately is to make the language as a whole glitter
':lth sparkles from AntlqUlty, please us wlth the colours of the art of rhetoric, gleam with jewelhke words of wisdom, and charm us with titbits of wit and humour. 8
5
6
183
10
11
From the translation in CWE 31: 17/10-18/13. This quotation is from the section of the Introduction entitled "Decorative Value of the Proverb," but I think its application is wider.
The form in LB (presumably based on the 1540 text in Opera Omnia) is intertexantur, which is
striking. There is the root word texo, to make a fabric on a 100m, to weave, or to represent in
tapestry. In classical Latin it had also come to signify forming by plaiting or twining, and thus to
put together or construct a more complex structure (even a ship), or to fit together into a complex
structure.
Textum is the past participle of texo and meant a woven cloth; but it was also transferred to
rhetorical style, as Quintilian uses it in the Institutes IX.iv.17: "illud in Lysia dicendi textum
tenue". And it could mean the framework of a ship, formed by intercrossing timbers; this points
towards the metaphors for building a house that one finds in medievalliterary theory.
Perhaps Erasmus in coining (apparently) intertexantur wanted to emphasize the act of weaving
rather than the finished product.
I take 1467 as the year of Erasmus' birth, for reasons given in Erasmus Grandescens (1988 b), and
chapter 2 of my biography (forthcoming). The dating of Ep. 1 was made by P. S. Allen in his
Opus Epist. Erasmi and is followed in CWE 1 :2.
For an ac count of this process see Phillips (1964).
184
R. J. Sehoeek
schoolboy and one which Erasmus quotes again and again in the Adages. This is
not all of the weaving of quotations in his first letter, a short one of only 17 lines
in the Toronto edition;12 but it is enough to suggest that the interweaving habit
of mind had already begun. Erasmus was an intertextualist at the age of 17, and
some of the habit of mind had been established by the commonplace book
method of registering his reading.
Erasmus' second letter, most probably (though we are speaking in terms of
what has survived, and there were certainly others), is addressed simply to
Elizabeth, a nun, and the dating is also uncertain: it may be 1487, or as late as
1489. Here again Erasmus quotes Ovid, four lines from the Epistulae ex Ponto,
which project the topos of the shipwrecked individual. But in the text of thirty
lines there are also allusions to such commonplaces as Fortune and her wheel
and two faces, to fair-weather friends, and to seeing more clearly than the sun
(line 21). This is not remarkable, perhaps. But as I have remarked elsewhere
(Schoeck 1988 b, 79 ff.), there are problems of interpretation in the early letters
of Erasmus; and one aspect or dimension that needs to be considered can be
called the silences of Erasmus - those things he takes for granted, or for whatever
reason does not make explicit in writing to one of his numerous correspondents;
or it may be that he writes within a context that lost letters would have made
clear. In writing to Elizabeth, a nun, he makes no overt Scriptural allusions,
which is striking. But there are Scriptural allusions enough in the Oratio Funebris in Funere Bertae de Heyen, which Erasmus had already written, and which
paid tribute, as we think, to the mother of this nun (LB VIII, 551-60), and there
are still other Biblical echoes in the Epitaphium Bertae de H eyen (LB VIII, 560),
with echoes of medieval hymns as w.ell as of classical elegiac poetry:
Dum sydera lueidus aether,
Roseum dum sol agat orbem,
Phoebe dum roseida noetem ...
12
In general, only classieal allusions and quotations (as well as eontemporary historieal events and
the identifieation of personages) are identified in the eommentary of the Toronto edition. Seriptural allusions in the main are not noted, and yet they add another level of weaving; indeed, the
interweaving of classieal and seriptural allusion is an important aspeet of Erasmus' humanistie
style, and it manifests ab initio the working together of the two.
185
offers the strongest possible evidence of yout good will towards me ... " (CWE
1 :3/3-4). It seems safe to conclude that something in the letter now lost had
triggered not only a letter in response from Erasmus, but also the mode and tone
of his reply.
IOne further example from these earliest letters. It is another from Erasmus'
monastery years and can be provisionally dated c. 1487 as weIl. In a single sentence of Erasmus' letter to his friend Servatius Rogerus, a young monk at Steyn
(outside Gouda):
Why do I uselessly strive to plough the sand or wash a briek; and why do I roll this stone any
longer? (Ep. 7, eWE 1: 11/50-1)
All three of these topoi - 'plough the sand', 'wash a brick', and 'roll this stone' are taken up and developed in much expanded form in the Adagia. 13 The last of
them in fact is played with again, in another letter to Servatius Rogerus, probably in the following year:
Am I, like Sisyphus, onee again with useless toil to roll a stone uphill? (Ep. 23, eWE 1 :17/16-7)
It is evident that Erasmus wove ideas and expressions back and forth between his
letters, and then from them to the Adages. At this stage the letters came forth
first, but in later years more often it is the Adages that precede and the letters
which work upon them as sub-texts. In fact, the Adages are quintessentially
intertextual by their very definition, design, and execution.
The first version of the Adages was published in 1500 and it bore the title
CollectaneaAdagiorum, which emphasizes that the adages were assembled from
various sources. It was a rather small book of 152 pages and contained only 818
adages. This number was greatly increased, and many of the individual adages
were expanded in the 1508 edition called Adagiorum chiliades tres: three
thousand adages. Both the 1500 version, the Collectanea, and the 1508, had
separate printing histories and were printed in a number of European cities by
different presses for many years. The 1500 Collectanea, in fact, was reprinted at
least eleven times during the sixteenth century; and there were in addition at
least fourteen digests, abridgments, epitomes of theAdages. All in all, by the end
of the century perhaps as many as one hundred editions, abridgments, translations, and the like of the two versions had been published. It was universally
used as a thesaurus intertextualis; and more than any single work of Erasmus' it
led to the concept of hirn as a man of great learning, or, in Pliny's words in one of
his epistles, mihi ... quotiens aliquid abditum quaero, ille thesaurus (Ep. I.
22.2).14
Let us look at these models of intertextuality more closely. In the Collectanea
(at number 408) there is a list of phrases or proverbs expressing fruitless labour;
numbers 48 to 98, in the Adagiorum Ch ilia des, are all examples of fruitless
13
14
186
R. J. Schoeck
labour - very early adages, they are relatively quite brief and undeveloped. It is
evident that Erasmus' general practice is ta quote an authentic source and to
define it in one way or another. He then comments on it, often (as in 51) offering
additional references to other or fuller developments of the adage. In the later
adages, especially those written after 1517, Erasmus will weave in an essay on the
contemporary relevance, and then conclude in some way that shows the relationship of the past to the present. In the adages of the last decade of his life,
Erasmus often gives us scenes and persons remembered from his youth: perhaps
the sound of Dutch voices in his boyhood, or the story of the day he went
around in circles on horseback in the fog. 15 The early adages, then, tend ta be
short, certainly much shorter than the later ones, for Erasmus learned, especially
in the edition of 1533, how to make use of the form and provided "the system of
the Adages at its fullest development, a vehicle for the ripe comments and mellow reminiscence which are the late harvest, the 'aftermath' of a long life" (Phillips 1964, 39).
There is some Greek in the 1500 Collectanea, but in only about a third; the
number of adages with Greek references and quotations increases markedly after 1508, underscoring Erasmus' growing mastery of the Greek language and of
Greek literature, and the uses made of the Greek become fuller and richer. Erasmus professed ta be ashamed at how litde Greek there was in his first version of
1500, but it is considerable and it marks the importance of the Collectanea as a
humanist book that made a significant contribution by enlarging the canon, as
well as in other ways. There is always, one may remark, a reciprocal functioning
between intertextuality and canon; except in post-modernist writing, where
there may be an avowed effort to de&troy the canon, intertextuality works best
where there is a consensus about the canon, that is to say, a shared canon of
literature, so that there can be a response to the intricate process of encoding and
decoding. 16
The story of interrelating texts and interwoven quotations does not end with
the publication of the Adages through the years, of course, for there is their
Nachleben. In his work that is still in progress, Mathieu Knops is bringing together aseries of essays on the influence of the Adages in different European
countries, for there were readers everywhere; and it is appropriate that the contributors to his volume are Erasmians from several countries. In this volume
Knops will provide an analysis of the fifty-five copies of sixteenth-century editions of theAdages found in the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbttel, some
of which contain marginalia and other indications of reader-response.
Here I want simply and briefly to call attention to three kinds of response in
later writers who then use the Adages as their sub-text. The first is Rabelais, and
M. A. Screech in his edition of the Tiers Livre has demonstrated that on nearly
l
15
16
187
every page there are allusions to the Adagia, sometimes one, sometimes as many
as half a dozen; Rabelais' own book is interwoven with strands from that of
Erasmus. Not only are many of these textual traces manifest to the careful
reader, but the practice is perhaps Rabelais' way of paying tribute ta a mastertext to which he owed so much. 17 A second writer is Montaigne, whose essays
are generically indebted to the form of the later Adagia, which discourse upon a
range of subjects and involve the writer's personal experiences. There are differences, obviously, but in the development from adage to essay there is a clear
line of organic development. A third writer is Robert Burtan, whose Anatomy
o[ Melancholy (1621) carries us inta the seventeenth century. An elaborate encyclopedic work that is organized thematically, it is, in the words of John Hollander and Frank Kermode (1973, 964), a book that is "also ab out the very
condition of being learned," for the "interior dialogue of the whole book is
between scholar and books, English and Latin": it marks a limit to possible
development of the intertextual essay.
From Montaigne to Francis Bacon there had been a development of the essay
form, to be sure; but in the hands oE- Burton extensive and wide-ranging essays
are subordinated to the controlling central system of a compendium on melancholy. Wh at is to b~ no ted is the extent to which on every page there is a bringing
together - we return to that root metaphor in the 1500 tide of Erasmus' Collectanea, "assembled from various sources" - an adduction of adages from the
wide world of learning. Not only is it a development from the Erasmian technique of assembling adages, with many of Burton's individual quotations being
also found in the Adagia, which may have been for Burtan both the index in
going to a locus classicus as well, perhaps, as in some instaQces his direct and only
source. (Burton's quotations, as far as I know, have not been fully checked
against the Adagia, and until that is done one cannot speak too firmlyon this
matter.) But, not only is Burton's Anatomy a development of Erasmian technique, it is also a kind of commemoration of Erasmian inspiration, as in their ways
the books of Rabelais and Montaigne were. But it is an overdevelopment, and I
suggest an inter-art metaphor: we can characterize Burton's technique in terms
of the over-ornate Baroque arch, as Churrigueresque, an overloading of the
building with ornament. 18 This characterization takes us inta the world of art
and architecture, and it is appropriate to bring to an end this indication of the
widening circles of readers of the Adagia with a notice of Alciati; I refer to
Andrea Alciati's Emblematum liber of 1531, which introduced the developed
emblem into European literature and established a concept as well as a new
form, one that had enormous vogue for more than two centuries. The greatest
debt of Alciati was ta Erasmus, as many of the individual emblems, drawn from
the Adages, make evident. In form, there was the motto with an explication,
17
18
Rabelais' letter to Erasmus that begins "Salve itaque etiam atque etiam, pater amantissime"
speaks of this great debt unequivocally: "Everything that I do, all that I am, I owe to you."
This is in Eco's terminology "over-coding": see Eco (1976),133-135.
188
R. J. Schoeck
For its admirable brevity and clarity I am indebted to J. L. Lievsay's description of the emblem in
the Princeton Encyclopedia (1974). Again, during the Renaissance itself there was an easy familiarity with interart metaphors - a kind of intertextuality. See now W. S. Heckscher, The Princeton Alciati Companion (New York, Garland, 1989).
189
which he perhaps began to read in the monastery at ab out the same time that he
was reading Valla's Elegantiae, that work which so greatly influenced his concept of true Latinity of language and a true classical style. Finally, very much to
the point of viewing intertextuality within Erasmus' writing and reading during
these crucial years in the monastery, when he was from about nineteen to about
twenty-five, is the consistent paralleling, really echoing, of ideas and words
from the De Contemptu M undi to the three elegies written during this period, as
Reedijk has shown (Poems, 1956,205-17); and from these writings there are, as
always in Erasmus, echoings in the letters, which I think sometimes precede,
sometimes accompany, and sometimes look back upon those other works.
What is needed is a sense of possible models or paradigms for intertextuality,
and these might range from overlays or maps, to sets of intertwined ropes or
rugs and garments from woven materials. Without attempting at this point to
generate a new vocabulary for the study of intertextuality I would like to consider the notion of mobiles as an analogy for the play of texts with and against
each other in the writings of Erasmus. A mobile (largely innovated by the
American sculptor William Calder) describes a type of hanging sculpture consisting of parts that move, especially in response to air currents, for these parts
are usually hung by wire from the ceiling or from other parts. 20 Take, then, a
number of mobiles in a room of this size, and imagine that there are severallines
coming down from the ceiling, and on each line there is aseparate little set of
suspended objects, a system of mobility, oE potential interdependence, of varying movement. Within each set or system there is relationship : movements occur as a result of energy somewhere else in that system, doubtless initiated by an
external force, such as a current of air - or a great social event, or achallenging
new concept, to extend our analogy in the world of thought and leiters. But in a
room this size it is likely that there are already connections that we do not seevery fine wires connecting the different sets, at different points - and so if there is
a tug or push over there, unexpectedly there is movement over here; and we may
not have known that there was a connection. Connections, we must think, can
always be made between systems; and in fact there is a larger galaxy of interconnections always potential. It is almost impossible to conceive a limit to the possibilities of systems of mobiles within this galaxy. The world of literature is such
a galaxy of mobiles. The Reformation was one system, and the Renaissance
another; and we keep discovering connections between these two systems that
were not visible before. And Erasmus? He is a whole system hirnself.
20
The term from which the Calder sculpture derived its name, mobile, is a synonym for movable, as
in a mobile horne. But it is also something special in the sense in which I have been speaking.
Here, in Calder's kind of mobile, there is also a sense of play, which is a vital part of the Renaissance society and imagination. Intertextuality, I suggest, works best in a spirit of game.
190
R. J. Schoeck
Bibliography
Barkan, Leonard
1986
The Gods Made Flesh: Metamorphosis & the Pursuit of Paganism. New Haven: Yale
UP.
.
Cave, Terence
1979
The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Colie, Rosalie L.
1973
The Resources of Kind: Genre-Theory in the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Curtius, Ernst Robert
1953
European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton UP (originally
published in German as Europische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. Bern/
Mnchen: Francke, 1948).
Ducrot, Oswald/T. Todorov
1979
Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language. Baltimore, Md.: J ohns Hopkins UP (French orig. 1972).
Eco, Umberto
1976
A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Erasmus
1974
The Correspondence of Erasmus. Ed. R. A. B. Mynors/D. F. S. Thomson, anno W. K.
Ferguson. Collected Works of Erasmus (= CWE), 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
"Adages", CWE 31. Tr. M. M. Philipps, anno R. A. B. Mynors. Toronto: University
1982
of Toronto Press.
Ette,Ottmar
1985
"Intertextualitt. Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmerkungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift fr Literaturgeschichte, 497-519.
Forster, Leonard
1974
Dichten in fremden Sprach~n. Mnchen: Fink.
Frnkel, Hermann
1956
Ovid: A Poet between Two Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Greene, Thomas M.
1982
The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale UP.
Hollander, John/Frank Kermode, eds.
1973
The Literature of Renaissance England. The Oxford Anthology of English Literature, 2. New York/London/Toronto: Oxford UP.
Lievsay, John L.
1974
"Emblem." In Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. Alex Preminger et
al. Princeton: Princeton Up, 217.
Martindale, Charles, ed.
1988
Ovid Renewed: Ovidian Influences on Literature and Art from the Middle Ages to
the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Mommsen, Theodor E.
1942
"Petrarch's Concept of the Dark Ages." Speculum 17,226-42.
Nolan,E.P.
1985
"Beyond Macaronic: Embedded Latin in Dante and Langland." In Acta Conventus
Neo-LatiniBononiensis, ed. R.J. Schoeck. Binghamton, N. Y.: Med. & Ren. Texts &
Studies, 539-548.
Phillips, Margaret Mann
1964
The "Adages" of Erasmus. A Study with Translations. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
191
Plett, Heinrich F.
.
1986
"The Poetics of Quotation." Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensts:
Sectio Linguistica 17,293-313 (publ. 1988).
Rabelais, Franc;ois
1964
Le tiers livre. Ed. M. A. Screech. Textes litteraires franc;ais, 102. Geneve: Droz.
Schoeck, Richard J.
1968
"Mathematics and the Languages of Literary Criticism." Journal of Aesthetics and
Art Criticism, 26, 367-76.
"'Lighting a Candle to the Place': On the Dimensions and Implications of Imitatio in
1983
the Renaissance." Italian Culture, 4,123-43.
1984
Intertextuality andRenaissance Texts. Gratia, 12. Bamberg: Kaiser Verlag. - .
1988 a
"Intertextuality and the Rhetoric Canon." In Criticism, History, and Intertextualtty"
ed. RichardFleming/MichaeIPayne. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell UP/London: ASSOC1ated University Presses, 98-112.
."
.
.
Erasmus Grandescens: The Growth of a Humanist's Mmd and Spmtualtty. Nleuw1988 b
koop: De Graaf.
Tracy, J ames D.
1972
Erasmus, The Growth of aMind. Geneve: Droz.
Wilkinson, Lancelot P.
1945
Horace and his Lyric Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
1955
Ovid Recalled. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. (Abridged as Ovid Surveyed. Knopf:
New York 1974.)
1969
The Georgics of Virgil. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
DEREK N. C. WOOD
nos quoque has apes debemus imitari et quaecumque ex diversa lectione congessimus, separare,
melius enim distineta servantur, deinde adhibita
ingenii nostri cura et-jacultate in unum saporem
varia illa libamenta confundere, ut etiam si apparuerit, unde sumptum sit, aliud tamen esse
quam unde sumptum est appareat.
Seneca. Ad Lucilium, Ep.lxxxiv.
There is still much to be learned about the relations hip between the Renaissance
poetics of Imitation and the poetics of Intertextuality. Gerard Genette has already made a valuable contribution to that enquiry (1982,11-17; 80-112 etc.),
and Laurent Jenny has suggested that the Renaissance, like the early twentieth
century, is a particularly interesting period for the student of intertextuality
(1976,259). As he says, "le dogme de l:~mitation propre ala Renaissance est aussi
une invite aune lecture double des Fextes et au dechiffrage de leur rapport intertextuel avec le modele antique. Les mo des de lecture de chaque epoque sont
donc aussi inscrits dans leurs modes d'ecriture" (258). This essay will focus not
on the theoretical relationships but on the actual practice of one of the most
accomplished literary artists working within the poetics of imitation. Milton's
tragedy Samson Agonistes is of considerable interest to the intertextualist, referring as it does to a vast intertext of classical, Biblical and Renaissance pre-texts
and hypo-texts. In these pages, I will develop two connected arguments. For the
theorist, I propose to return attention to the role of the author, so often ignored
if not despised in recent years as emphasis has increasingly been placed on the
reader's apprehension of meaning. For the traditional scholar, I suggest that the
concepts generated by intertextual theory, or "transtextuality," can help resolve
a controversy that criticism of Samson is locked in just now. The level of disagreement about fundamental aspects of the play is quite startling: Is the hero
finally the champion of God or of Satan? Is the hero's achievement a triumph of
Christian morality, perhaps typifying Christ' s redemptive death, or is it a sinful,
presumptuous, self-indulgent orgy of vengeful violence? Disagreement follows
about the structure of the play, the nature of the tragedy and its place in Milton's
thought. An understanding of its intertextuality - and of Milton's understand-
193
ingof its intertextuality - can help us appreciate the play's sustained multivalency held poised as it is in delicate suspension. It offers the reader unanswered
and unanswerable questions. It enacts the problems encountered by the Christian in reading the Word of God, when that Word raises questions and uncertainties which are not clarified by the silent Divine Author. Criticism of Samson
Agonistes in the last two decades has been predominantly contextual as scholars
have tried to find a location for it in the geography of Milton's work, while some
have laboured to recuperate in it what others have found intolerable. Most have
tried to achieve a simpl/e linear resolution of its multivalent ambiguities. Few
have indicated these as honestly and revealingly as Ulreich, who exclaims: "Is
Samson Agonistes a demonic parody of the Apocalypse? Or is Samson the antitype, the Word made flesh,of which Samson's holocaust is the type? I am not
sure that this choice can be determined [rom the evidence o[ the play [.:.]" (1983,
313; italics added).
It is no secret that intertextual theorists recently have shown little interest in
the text's author. Linda Hutcheon, attempting to describe the "actual experience
of reading," eliminates the author from Kristeva's model of that activity: "Is the
intertextual dialogue not rather one between the reader and his/her memory of
other texts, as provoked by the work in question ? Certainly the role of the
author in contemporary discussions of intertextuality has proved to be minimal
[ ... ]" (1986,231). So, the concern of the intertextualist has moved away from the
creative function of the author to the perceptive function of the reader, from the
craft of the maker to the enjoyment of the receiver. Riffaterre describes intertextuality as "a modality of perception, the deciphering of the text by the reader in
such a way that he identifies the structures to which the text owes its quality of
work of art" (1980, 625). The tendency has been to see intertextuality not so
much as a condition of the text - semantic, linguistic or structural - but as a
decoding activity. As Riffaterre goes on to say: "The term indeed refers.to an
operation of the readet's mind [ ... ]" (1984, 142). Of course, some have gone
beyond ignoring the activity of the author to denying it. Eco insists that "it is not
true that works are created by their authors. Works are created by works, texts
are created by texts, all together they speak to each other independently of the
intention of their authors" (1986, 199). Loy Martin "abolishes effectively the
poet as unique innovator." For Martin he is merely "the well-instructed missionary of the language which constitutes both his own subjectivity and that of
his culture. And the site of his mission is the literary past" (1980, 667).
To some extent, this averting of the gaze from the author is grounded
in ideological distaste. Many have found offensive the treatment of the text as
the property of the author, who thus, like a colonial imperialist lays claim to
structures of meaning that others see as the common property of humanity.
The author as owner and profiteer has readily been identified with the entrepreneur in the capitalist market place. Likewise, the Romantic compulsion to
glamorise individual genius also threatens the interests of the community. Such
impulses have produced a male-dominated canon of great writers, rejected
194
D. N. C. Wood
by feminist and marxist critics alike. Barthes, for instance, flaunts his dislike of
capitalist ideology and the prestige of the individual in his irritation at the
"Author-God" :
The writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to
mix writings, to counter the ones with the others [ ... ]. Did he wish to express himself, he ought at
least to know that the inner 'thing' he thinks to 'translate' is itself only a ready-formed dictionary,
its words only explainable through other words [ ... ] (1988,170).
Such conclusions invite deconstruction, but all I suggest here is that the activity
of the encoder can be plotted, and that sometimes it deserves and rewards
scrutiny. Even the writers cited above appear to concede as much, guardedly.
Linda Hutcheon admits that "someone obviously had to place those strategies in
the text" (1986,234). Although Barthes reduces the author's contribution to
"mixing" writings, that is itself an arguably interesting function, although the
word describing it is so dismissive. Riffaterre defines the "intertext" as the "corpus of texts the reader may legitimately connect with the one before his eyes,
that is, the texts brought to mind by wh at he is reading"(1980, 626). If we ask
what makes a particular reading-act "legitimate," the answer must be that it is
determined by the text being read, which therefore has its own integrity,
sovereignty and individuality. Then the activity of shaping or mixing that text
must be a valid subject for critical enquiry. After all, the author is also areader,
the first more or less critical reader of the text. The author has apower to manipulate and organise which exceeds that of the reader of the most" scriptible" of
texts. As Jean Verrier says, "L'ecrivain lit et est lu; le lecteur ecrit et est ecrit.
C'est le mouvement circulaire ou en spirale, que doit suivre notre lecture: l'ecrivain devenu lecteur-voyeur est plus 'que jamais identifiable au scripteur" (1976,
346). The writer as text-manipulator can be sensitive to the intertext and fashion
the work so as to exploit delicat~.ly its ambiguities or its suggestiveness. Every
act of selection - of genre, sentence, word - by the author implies an act of
criticism. As Riffaterre states, "The literary representation of reality, then, for
all its objectifying stance, is essentially an interpretive discourse [ ... J. In sum,
intertextuality cannot avoid being hermeneutic" (1984, 159-60).
Milton is a writer with a particularly sensitive intertextual awareness. A special place in a taxonomy of intertextualities should be allocated to works
fashioned with such creative selfconsciousness. Few works are better proofexamples than is Samson Agonistes of LaurentJenny's affirmation: "L'intertextualite designe non pas une addition confuse et mysterieuse d'influences, mais
le travail de transformation et d'assimilation de plusieurs textes opere par un
texte centreur qui garde le leadership du sens" (1976,262). Late in the play, the
Chorus celebrates Samson's destruction of the Philistines in words that serve
to illustrate not only the intertextual density of Milton's poetic language but
also the delicately controlled authorial indirection wh ich is the theme of this
essay:
195
Modern scholarship has tried to assess the seventeenth century reader's response
to the chorus's conception of "virtue". Most scholars consider that Samson is
the regenerate and triumphant champion of God (e. g. Stein, Allen, Low, Radzinowicz); many feel that Samson typologically anticipates Christ's redemptive
sacrifice or his final judgment (e. g. Scott-Craig, Lewalski); some feel the play is
a defiant statement of hope by a stubborn, anti-monarchic revolutionary (e. g.
HilI, J ose); but others are convinced that Samson is sinful or satanic or a
pathological, brutal murderer (e. g. Samuel, Carey, Bouchard, Wittreich).
Should the reader accept or reject the Chorus's idea of "virtue" as a sdund
Christian one? I think it is fair to say that we cannot decide from the text alone.
Virtue is a word that acts in Milton's poems like an intertextual signpost. It is an
instrument for fictionality, silently revealing the ideologicallimitations in the
fictional consciousness of its user. The author seldom intervenes to indicate
where the sign directs uso When Satan in Paradise Lost upbraids the fallen angels
for reposing their cCwearied virtue" abjectly (PLi. 320), the word is devoid of the
Christian significance it has when used by the narrator of the sinners Adam and
Eve cCdestitute and bare Of all their virtue"(9. 1063). Sometimes, what looks like
authorial indication is nonetheless fictional, as in cCphilosophic pride, By hirn
called virt'\le"; the commentator here is ideologically perfect, for it is cc our
Saviour" in Paradise Regained evaluating the Stoic (4. 300). However, Satan's
intellective limitations are revealed when, misconceiving God's nature, he
speculates, cCWhether such virtue spent of old now failed More angels to
create"(PL 9.145). While Eve's pre-Iapsarian wisdom is undefiled, she can play
subtly with the word's meanings of cCpower" and cCgoodness": cCFruitless to me,
though fruit be here to excess, The credit of whose virtue rest with thee" (9. 648)
but, yielding to her tempter, she sadly mistakes the nature of the fruit and of
virtue: CCFair to the eye, inviting to the taste, Of virtue to make wise" (9. 777).
If we turn back now to the Chorus in Samson we may notice that the rejoicing
of the Danites recalls another response in Milton's poetry to horrifying destruction. Sin congratulates Satan on his cCmagnific deeds":
Thou hast achieved our liberty [.. .J.
Thine now is all this world, thy virtue hath won [ ... ] thy wisdom gained
With odds what war hath lost, and fully avenged
Our foil in heaven [ ... J. (PL 10.368-375)
They proceed to cCdestroy [... ] waste and havoc" (611,617). The similarities in
the two situations are disturbing. Rationalising self-interest, in both cases, distorts the analysis of events. Victory, honour and liberty are wrongly conceived
196
D. N. C. Wood
of. Destruction is made to serve as a measure of success. The echo es are amplified in the Dragon image. Samson's "virtue" is "fiery" (1690). This is a preChristian "virtus" - or physical might- ravaging the nests of "tarne villatic fowl"
(1695). This image even calls to mind the serpent in the way of the Lord in
Genesis. Christopher HilI dismisses Irene Samuel's reading of the playas distorted by "a modern liberal Christianity which [Milton] did not share" (1977,
444), but this is to ignore the intertext of the play. It is Sin who misconceives
destructiveness as virtue. It appears then that the chorus also misconceives the
nature of virtue as, by Christian standards, they obviously should. Are they
fashioned to act out aJudaic consciousness as seen by a Christian? If this seems to
be obvious, it is a view that is normally rejected by most of those who have
traced a Christian ethic in the play's personae. The critics mentioned are readers
whose scholarship is consummate and whose critical sensitivity is exquisite, and
yet they disagree about almost every aspect of one of the best known poems in
English literature. The author is silent; we may say he has chosen to die. He has
left us with indirection, knowing that other texts will speak to this text. Later, I
will show that the indirection is creative.
The deep dis agreements among scholars and critics who often flatly contradict one another about every important element in the play, suggest either
that Milton has failed hopelessly to communicate its meaning or that perhaps the
indirection is controlled and deliberate. Sometimes an intertextual echo clearly
reveals the author at work. J oseph Wittreich has shown this neatly in the belief
stated by the Chorus (1270-72) and by Manoa (341) that Samson is invincible.
Wittreich shows from other texts that "invincibility is an attribute only of Godhead," and human boasts about invin<;,ibility are more indicative of intractability
and pig-headedness. Manoa and th y Chorus are wrong (1986, 248 - 50). Samson' s
own evaluation of his strength provides problems for the reader until it is placed
within its intertextual web of refe'tents. Christ's triumph was in a "great duel,
not of arms" (PR 1.174), and many readers are convinced that Samson's
triumph, to~, was the culmination of an agon, a victory over temptation, a hardwon struggle for spiritual growth and renovation. However, his end re-enacts
his violently physical prime, when "old warriors turned Their plated backs
und er his heel; Orgrovelling soiled their crested helmets in the dust" (139-41).
He measures his own "great act" by an ethic of strength and blood-heroism. His
worst moments of despair were linked with the memory of lost physical
strength (631-51). "Strength is my bane" (63), he cries more prophetically than
he realises. A Treatise of Civil Power contains an intertextual gloss on this ethic:
"Force is no honest confutation; but uneffectual, and for the most part unsuccessfull, oft times fatal to them who use it" (CP 7: 261-2).
In the field of listening to Samson - to paraphrase Barthes - meaning comes
sometimes from glimmerings, sometimes from eclats, penetrating blows from
other scenes. Characteristic of the poetic language in the play is a condition of
misconception: concepts that have a certain significance in Christian theology
are understood differently by the fictionalJudaic characters, conceptions such as
197
The reference of Samson's-poignant lament at his blindness is peculiarly complex. Again it appears to me that the writer controls the intertext9al reference
with great care but also withthat evasiveness that has been noted above:
Light the prime work of God ta me is extinct [... J.
o first-created beam, and thou great word,
Let there be light, and light was over all;
Why am I thus bereaved thy prime decree?
[... ] Since light so necessary is ta life,
And almost life itself, if it be true
That light is in the soul [.. .J. (70-92)
The intertextual reference here works quite differently from that in the much
discussed Invocation in Paradise Lost with its entirely Christian allusions:
Hail, holy Light, offspring of heaven first-born,
Or of the eternal co-eternal beam
May I express thee unblamed? since God is Light [... J. (3. 1-3)
The pre-text of Samson's anguished cry is Genesis 1.3 which he quotes consciously but he is unconscious of the Christian material that forms the intertext
of the epic invocation. However, Samson's reader interconnects that entire body
of Christian Gospel, commentary, sermon and allusion, including prominently
the words of St.John:
In the beginning was the Word [... ] In hirn was life; and the life was the light of men. And the
light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not [ ... ] That was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh inta the world. He was in the world, and the world was
made by hirn, and the world knew hirn not [... ] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth. (1.1-14)
Samson is consciously quoting Genesis but does Milton not make hirn unconsciously quote John? And is this not the key to the code which has divided
commentators on this play? Is not Samson a dramatic exemplum of a moral
consciousness that is honest but flawed, morally flawed in its ignorance of the
example and teaching ofJohn's Christ Incarnate in time (see Wood, 1989). Samson, in physical and moral darkness, cannot know the light and the incarnation
of the Word that will come centuries later and te ach an ethic so different from
Samson's ethic of strength and destruction. That Word will te ach a word Sam-
198
D. N. C. Wood
199
son does not mention: "charity." This is a long way from interpretations of
Samson as type of Christ or triumphant champion of God. The intertextual
connectors are faint. As Heinrich F. Plett writes:
The receiver, i. e. the listener or reader, who comes across a quotation text, may either notice the
quotations or he may not. If he overlooks them, the text misses its purpose which consists in
opening up dialogues between pre-texts and quotation texts. The culprit for such an aesthetic
failure cannot easily be identified. Part of the responsibility lies with the author who should feel
obliged to supply the quotations with markers [...] (1986, 306-7).
Here the markers are not clear and the effect again is one of indirection. The
dramatic form makes it easier for the author to silence his own voice and to
exclude the voice of any privileged, authoritative moral commentator, such as
we hear in the epics. Any narrative framing that occurs must be done by the
fictional dramatic characters and all their evaluations are, it folIows, subject to
error. Indeed, the author makes an effort to present them from the start as being
morally and intellectually flawed. The author's indirection has an important
effect. Does it not make deciphering the code more difficult? Does it not make it
difficult to read the moral significance of reading the text? And does this not
mime or re-enact the Christian's difficulty in reading the significance of its great
pre-text, the Bible?
Milton's tragedy enacts the problem of reading the Word of God, itself enmeshed in a formidable network of echoes, glosses, cruxes and obfuscations.
Sometimes its meaning is quite clear as when The Letter to Hebrews contextualises Judges and affirms Samson's status as a hero of faith. Yet that Letter
insists on the differences between the Law and the Gospel. Should the Christian
be meek, turn the other cheeck and r~ject the power of this earth as Christ does
in Paradise Regained, or imitate this Old Testament hero as a model, with his
violence and brawling destructiveness? Christopher HilI is quite certain that
Milton's Samson is offered unamblguously as a rle-model for contemporaries
who hated the enemies of God, namely the Caroline monarchists (1984,
310-319). Is Samson, then, an example of Christian strength in weakness, or of
the unChristian misuse of deadly force? The ambiguous Samson tradition had
manipulated Milton hirns elf over the years. Before the Revolution, he had treated Samson as a praiseworthy figure, but had identified hirn with the king (CP 1 :
858-9). In Areopagitica he had caressed the English people by allusively comparing them to Samson rising in his strength (CP 2: 557-8). In Eikonoklastes
Samson came to his mind as a figure of degradation (CP 3 : 461, 545 - 6). Later, in
the First Defence, Samson was cited as a destroyer of tyrants and overlords (CP
4, 1: 402). And then, it was Samson as remorseful sinner whom the writer recollected at the moment of the fall of humanity (PL 9. 1059-62). Years later, when
the Revolution had collapsed, words Milton had written at a time of military and
political triumph would come back to torture hirn: "Certainly in a good Cause
success is a good confirmation; for God hath promis'd it to good men almost in
every leafe of Scripture" (CP 3 :599). Later he could also reconsider bitterly and
at leisure the words he had written in an exuberant time about "Justice, which is
the Sv;.ord of God, superior to all mortal things, in whose hand soever by apparent signes his testified will is to put it" (CP 3 :193). After 1660, with the machinery of earthly justice securely in the hands of the monarchists, and surrounded
by the ruined remnants of victories won by physical resistance, the revolutionaries had to cope with disillusionment, not only about their vanished
achievements but about their very aims and their methods.
How could the God who willed 1649 also will 1660? And how could he sacrifice his servants then
even if others had let down his Cause? Men had believed that their cause was invincible because it
was God's. The defeat therefore called in question either God's goodness or his omnipotence, or
their understanding of God's will [ ... ] 'The Lord had blas ted them and spit in their faces,' wailed
Major-General Fleetwood (Hill 1984, 307).
Many interpreters read this simply as a divine sanction for Samson's destruction
of the Philistine temple, seeing God's impulse moving his champion to heroic
Christian action. Wittreich's conclusion, however, suggests how unconvincing
the evidence is for this: "[... ] Samson' s last act is left ambiguous, deliberately so
[... ]. Milton's poem is not about Samson's regeneration but, instead, about his
second fall" (1986, 80). In fact, the word "motions", with its implied claim to
divine impulsion or inner light, is a word that explodes in the reader's mind with
a polyvalent clamour of contradictory voices. In Kristeva's words, "en effritant
1
:
200
D. N. C. Wood
ainsi [ ... ] le langage poetique met en proces le sujet a travers un reseau de marques et de frayages semiotiques" (1974, 58). By 1660, a multitudinous host of
fools, charlatans and fanatics had claimed divine impulsion for their excesses and
even apparently blasphemous and outrageous behaviour. Knowing the truth of
another human being's claim to have been motioned by God was entirely problematical. Milton wrote in a late pamphlet: "Divine illumination [ ... ] no man
can know at all times to be in hirns elf, much less to be at any time for certain in
any other" (CP 7: 242). The word "motions" here is a kind of syllepsis. Riffaterre explains Derrida' s term:
Syllepsis eonsists in the understanding of the same word in two different ways at onee, as contextual meaning and as intertextual meaning. The eontextual meaning is that demanded by the
word's grammatieal eolloeations, by the word's referenee to other words in the text. The intertextual meaning is another meaning the word may possibly have, one of its dietionary meanings
and/or one aetualized within an intertext. In either case, this intertextual meaning is incompatible
with the context and pointless within the text, but it still operates as a second reference - this one
to the intertext (1980, 637- 8).
And he adds: "Undecidability can exist only within a text; it is resolved by the
interdependence between two texts." Undecidability is what the author offers
the reader, and it is mimetic of the ambiguity any individual must cope with
when probing the conscience of any other. By the end of the Puritan revolution,
the most partisan of believers were forced to reflect ruefully on the claims of
those who insisted they had been motioned by God. Cromwell tried to be tactful early on in the Putney Debates: "I know a man may answer all difficulties
with faith, and faith will answer all difficulties really where it is, but we are very
apt, all of us, to call that faith, that p~rhaps may be but carnal imagination, and
carnal reasonings" (Woodhouse 1~74, 8). It is difficult to know God working in
oneself, let alone in another, and in this too Samson is an imitatio of the ambivalences of human understandil'1g. Milton is harsher than Cromwell when he
excoriates the hypocrites, those who, lying, pretend that they have been moved
by the Spirit:
all the sacred mysteries of heaven
To their own vile advantages shall turn
[ ... ] though feigning still to act
By spiritual, to themselves appropriating
The Spirit of God [ ... ] (PL 12.509-519)
Milton's syllepsis reminds the reader of all the idiots, mountebanks and misguided ones who had claimed to be led by divine impulse. Samson hirnself had
been baffled by his own experience of being motioned. How difficult it is to read
God's own text, given its baffling intertextuality!
The meaning of Samson Agonistes is written in an intertextual space that had
already been frequently intercrossed when the latest narrator inJudges finally
reworked a story that recedes into a trackless antiquity of sacrificial sun-heroes
and springtime renewal. It has been endlessly overwritten since then by centuries of exegesis, allusion, citation, liturgical juxtaposition and refictionalisa-
201
tion. The space is full of queries, contradictions, flickerings of meaning: "L'enonce poetique est un sous-ensemble d'un ensemble plus grand qui est l' espace
des textes appliques dans notre ensemble" (Kristeva 1969, 194). Gerard Genette
reduced Kristeva's definition of intertextuality to only one of five categories he
proposed, and he restated her description of it in these words: "une relation de
co-presence entre deux ou plusieurs textes, c' est-a-dire, eidetiquement et le plus
souvent, par la presence effective d'un texte dans un autre" (1982, 8). Milton as
author has tactfully withdrawn from the reader's presence so that the intertextual space (Kristeva's "lieu d'enonciation") is filled with echoes, questions,
whispered doubts and noisy contradictions: "un echange chatoyant de voix
multiples, posees sur des on des differentes et saisies par moments d'un fading
brusque, dont la trouee permet a I' enonciation de migrer d'un point de vue a
l'autre sans prevenir" (Barthes 1970,49). In connection with this, I agree with
those scholars who do not believe that Milton is working within the typological
tradition of Biblical hermeneutics to present Samson as a type of Christ. However, he is aware of that element in the intertext supplying voices that suggest
those ways of reading the Samson text.
The impasse or face-to-face confrontation that Samson criticism finds itself in
is the result of a yearning for closure: for one fixed, finite, circumscribable
meaning. In the case of this text, it is more than ever true that such a longing is
merely "le reve d'une reuvre totale, parfaite, OU chaque fragment trouverait sa
place harmonieuse; reve d'accomplissement de l'histoire, projet hegelien" (Perrone-Moises 1976,378). Most readers of SamsonAgonistes consider,that Samson
is a tragic hero intended to command admiration and resp~ct, and that Milton
presents hirn as a model for Christian imitation. Anthony Low pictured Samson
as a gloriously triumphant Christian hero: "The image and example of the
champion of God"(1974, 117). M. A. N. Radzinowicz concluded that the destruction of the temple is "a human imaging of God's might [... ] an exemplary
act which teaches how God gives freedom" (1978, 346). How much further
could one be from the objections of Irene Samuel who finds in Samson's last
words that, "It is still a monomaniac who speaks, and the mania is still egomania
[... ]." This maniac brings hirnself to destruction through his "shortcomings"
(1971,246,250). Some readers have placed Samson in the typological tradition as
a type of Christ the redeemer (Scott-Craig 1952), Christ the exemplar (Sadler
1972) or Christ surrounded by the Elect in final apocalyptic judgment (Lewalski
1970). Several Christian concepts have been invoked to describe his temporal
and spiritual victory: the descent or renewal of grace, divine impulsion, patience
triumphant over despair, temptation resisted, conversion, spiritual growth and,
most frequently, regeneration. Yet, Carey, reading the same text, finds in Samson "no spiritual development, only [ ...] resentment which has been gnawing
inwardly" (1969, 139). Among those who find it impossible to accept that Samson is an exemplary Christian is J. A. Wittreich who insists that "Milton's 'martyr-play' is T... ] less a celebration than a censure of its hero" (1986, 326). He
draws support from a vein of contemporary Renaissance allusion "that exhibits
202
D. N. C. Wood
203
tion of various saints, not their recovery and exaltation (182-3). Now, the intersection of the Scriptural intertext with the richly varied intertext of Christian
tradition has an interesting consequence. The affirmation in H ebrews that Samson is a "hero of faith" has absolute, divinely underwritten validity, but what is
not dear is how much of Samson's behaviour met with divine approval. Much of
it was sinful and indefensible, but which aspects precisely? The intertextual
force of the tradition is that almost any aspect of this behaviour, except his faith,
may be read as sinful, even satanic or demonic. The writer may intervene to
exclude possible traditional interpretations but Milton does not. He co-operates
with the intertextual potentialities and even intensifies them. Some demonic
echo es of Samson's behaviour have already been noted but there are more. His
dimactic figure of impatience and revulsion: "Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with
slaves" (41) recalls that of Satan' s follower, Moloc:
/
In both cases glory, pride, splendour are in ruin and both falls are associated
with a trust in physical strength, violence, and primitive heroism. Very late in
the day, Samson still defines his God essentially in terms of physical might:
"Soon feel, whose God is strongest, thine or mine" (1155). Milton co-operates
with the intertextual tensions in this material. His Samson is admittedly a hero of
faith, but little else in his sensibility, his morality or his personality is unambiguously praiseworthy. We do not know how to read Samson's text, let alone adopt
it as a model for Christian action.
In the dying moments of the Revolution, Milton went into hiding. He came
dose to being excluded from indemnity, and he was imprisoned until he endured the humiliation of begging for the King's pardon. He could no Ion ger
publish his political views openly. Some scholars are now dredging his Christian
Doctrine for statements supporting a violent and militant Christianity. What
they are not inclined to quote are the reservations made there about such statements, the exhortations to peaceful persuasion, to teaching in preference to
force. Christ in Paradise Regained rejected military solutions, and Adam in
Paradise Lost is taught by an angel to embrace mercy, meekness, suffering and
charity. Is Samson's political violence and bloody vengefulness, then, admirable
or misguided? Shawcross expresses frustration at "the uselessness of such action
[... ] the evil which hope becomes in man [ ... ] a sense of waste, of the meaninglessness of good [ ... ]" (1971, 304). There is no dear authorial guidance in the
paratext, and Milton avoids reference to Samson at moments in his later work
when he might have revealed his own attitude to a figure so enigmatic and contradictory in Christian tradition, a figure who must have loomed large in his
own consciousness, the hero of his only tragedy in the ancient manner. Why is
Samson not cited when Milton is discussing judicial violence, or war on the
ungodly, or good temptations, or justifiable lies or suicide? On the other hand,
204
D. N. C. Wood
neither does Milton rnention hirn when he lists penitents who were unregenerate: Cain, Esau, Judas and others (CP 6:458). He alludes to Hebrews without
reservation when he rnentions the first three names in the order there listed,
Abel, Enoch and Noah, "illustrious men who lived under the law" (475), and
H ebrews is his authority when he discusses implicit faith in the harlot Rahab
(472). His silence about Samson suggests adetermination to leave his dramatic
poem to speak for itself, ambiguous and enigmatic by calculation. The text he
has fashioned is highly "scriptible."
The intertextual complexity of Samson Agonistes vividly enacts and highlights
the problems a seventeenth century reader faced in reading the Bible itself and
using it as a guide-text to moral behaviour. The rewards for reading that text
were not earthly jouissance but eternal joy; the punishment for inept reading
was eternal perdition. So the problems were significant. Those problems are
integral to the meaning of the poem. Possible meanings intercross in the intertextual space on which Samson is written but the writer's voice is silent and he
points to no one of these paths. As LaurentJenny says, in spite of all the records
of historians, "le site de la bataille reste introuvable. C'est que pn!cisement, dans
l'ecriture, l'evenement reste insituable, il se derobe, on n'en a que des versions"
(1976,280-1). Milton knew exactly what he was doing.
Bibliography
Allen, Don Cameron
1970
The Harmonious Vision. Ba\timore: Johns Hopkins Up, rev. ed.
Barthes, Roland
1970
S/2. Paris: Seuil.
1988
"The Death of the Author. " In David Lodge, ed. Modern Criticism and Theory. N ew
York/London: Longmans, 167-172 (orig. 1968).
Bouchard, Donald R
1974
Milton: A Structural Reading. London: Edward Arnold.
Carey, John
1969
Milton. London: Evans Bros.
Eco, Umberto
1986
"Casablanca: Cult Movies and Intertextual Collage." In Faith in Fakes. Tr. W
Weaver. London: Secker & Warburg, 197-211.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes. Paris: Seuil.
HilI, Christopher
1977
Milton and the English Revolution. London: Faber & Faber.
1984
The Experience 0/ De/eat: Milton and Some Contemporaries. New York: Viking
Penguin.
Hutcheon, Linda
1986
"Literary Borrowing ... and Stealing: Plagiarism, Sources, Influences, and Intertexts." English Studies in Canada 12,229-239.
Jenny, Laurent
1976
"La strategie de la forme." Poetique 27, 257-281.
205
J ose, Nicholas
1980
"Samson Agonistes: The Play Turned Upside Down." Essays in Criticism 30,
124-150.
Kristeva, J ulia
1969
Semeiotike: Rech erch es pour une semanalyse. Paris: Seuil.
1974
La Revolution du langage pohique. Paris: Seuil.
Krause, R Michael
1974
Milton's Samson and the Christian Tradition. New York: Octagon (orig. 1949).
Lewalski, Barbara K.
1970
"Samson Agonistes and the 'Tragedy' of the Apocalypse." PMLA 85, 1050-1062.
Low, Anthony
1974
The Blaze o/Noon. New York: Columbia UP.
Martin, Loy D.
1980
"Literary Invention: The Illusion of the Individual Talent." Critica.llnquiry 7,
649-667.
Milton, J ohn
1953-82 Complete Prose Works. Ed. Don M. Wolfe et al. 8 vols. New Haven: Yale UP.
1968
The Poems 0/lohn Milton. Ed. J. Carey & A. Fowler. London: Longmans.
Perrone-Moises, Leyla
1976
"L'Intertextualite critique." Pohique 27, 372-384.
Plett, Heinrich R
1986
"The Poetics of Quotation." Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis:
Sectio Linguistica 17, 293-313 (publ. 1988).
Radzinowicz, Lady Mary Ann N evins
1978
Toward "Samson Agonistes": The Growth 0/ Milton's Mind. Princeton: Princeton
UP.
Riffaterre, Michael
1980
"Syllepsis." Criticallnquiry 7, 625-638.
19S4
"Intertextual Representation: On Mimesis as Interpretive Discourse." Criticallnquiry 11, 141-162.
Sadler, Lynn Veach
1972
"Regeneration and Typology: Samson Agonistes and Its Relation to De Doctrina
Christiana, Paradise Lost, and Paradise Regained." Studies in English Literature
1500-190012,141-156.
Samuel, Irene
206
D. N.
c. Wood
Wood, Derek N. C.
1989
"'Exil'd frorn Light': The Darkened Moral Consciousness of Milton's Hero of
Faith." University ofToronto Quarterly 58, 244-262.
Woodhouse, A. S. P.
1974
Puritanism and Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed.
MANFRED PFISTER
208
M. Pfister
209
Barth's programmatic statements are different: in Kristeva's case they are revolutionary and critical of bourgeois subjectivity, whilst Barth is marked by an
ambiguous attitude towards the haut gout of late bourgeois culture. What they
share is, however, the view of each text being enmeshed in a network of relationships and cross-references with other texts. Similarly, Raymond Federman, like
Barth both critic and novelist, sees literary production as a case of continued
"pla(y)giarism", i. e. as a combination of the ludic with the intertexual, as a
playful and self-conscious plagiarism (Federman 1975/76). And, to mention a
further example, Harold Bloom, one of the leaders of the Yale School, d~scribes
literary history in terms of an antagonistic scenario, in which each major poet,
suffering from "The Anxiety of Influence" , works out his own individuality and
originality in contradistinction with that of earlier masters, thus engaging in an
intensive, though mainly negative dialogue with them (Bloom 1973). In Poetry
and Repression (1976) he goes one step further ancl completely dismantles the
traditional idealist notion of a self-contained, autonomous text:
Few notions are more difficult to dispel than the 'commonsensical' one that a poetic text is selfcontained, that it has an ascertainahle meaning or meanings without reterence to other poetic
texts. (... ) Unfortunately, poems are not things hut only words that refer to other words, and
those words refer to still other words, and so on in the densely overpopulated world of literary
language. Any poem is an inter-poem, and any reading of a poem is an inter-reading. (Bloom
1976, H.)
210
M. Pfister
211
212
M. Pfister
Also going beyond Bakhtin, the notion of text is expanded in such a radical way
that, in the long run, everything - or, at least, every cultural formation - counts
as a text within this general semiotics of culture. It is this global notion of text
that underlies Kristeva's definition of intertextuality:
Nous appellerons INTERTEXTUALITE cette inter-action textuelle qui se produit a l'interieur
d'un seul texte. Pour le sujet connaissant, l'intertextualite est une notion qui sera l'indice de la
fac;:on dont un texte litl'histoire et s'insere en elle. (Kristeva 1969 b, 443)
Where Bakhtin still insisted on the "contact of subjects" behind the "dialogical
contact between texts" (Bachtin 1979, 353; my translation), Kristeva uses intertextuality as the linguistic and sel11:fotic lever to unhinge all bourgeois notions of
an autonomous subject, and as the most important tool in her deconstruction of
subject and text. In the framework of this theory the author of a text, once a
creator and a genius, dwindles in importance and his role is reduced to providing
the site or space for the interplay of texts. Creativity and productivity are transferred from the author to the text:
Le texte est donc une productivite, ce qui veut dire: 1. son rapport a la langue dans laquelle il se
situe est redistributif (destructivo-constructif) [ ... ] 2. il est une permutation de textes, une intertextualite: dans l'espace d'un texte plusieurs enonces, pris a d'autres textes, se croisent et se
neutralisent. (Kristeva 1969a, 113)
To the extent that creativity and productivity are transferred to the text, or
rather the interplay of texts, the individual subjectivity of the author disappears
and his authority over the text vanishes. According to Kristeva, this occurs particularly in poetry, the very type of discourse which in Romanticism was still
regarded as the last refuge of unalienated and authentic subjectivity: "Poetic
language, by employing semiotic markers and traces, dissolves the subject."
(quoted from Grbel1983, 221; my translation)
213
The subject that is being dissolved here is both that of theauthor and that of
the reader. Both author and reader become a mere "chambre d'echos" (Barthes
1975, 78), resounding with the resonances and the noise of other texts, and both
the author's and the reader's selves cease to be stable and pre-given entities: "je
n'est pas un sujet innocent, anterieur aux texte [ ... ] Ce 'moi' qui s'approche du
texte est deja lui-meme une pluralite d'autres textes, de codes infinis, ou plus
exactement: perdus (dont l'origin~ se perd)". (Barthes 1970, 16) Both reading
and writing are, therefore, "actes d'intertextualisation" and one reads and writes
- to use Charles Grivel's image reminding one of Borges' library of Babel- "a
travers la Bibliotheque [ ... ], a travers des pans entiers de la Bibliotheque"
(Grivel1982, 240).
Corresponding to the dissolving of subjects there is, at thesame time, a dis solving of the text as a coherent and self-contained unit of meaning. "There are no
texts, but only relationships between texts", wrote Harold Bloom categorically
(Bloom 1975, 3), repeating only what had been said before hirn by Michel Butor:
"11 n'y a pas d'oeuvre individuelle. L'oeuvre d'un individu est une sorte de
noeude qui se produit a l'interieur d'un tissu culturel." (Butor 1969, 2) The
metaphor of an echo chamber therefore applies in the same way to the text itself
as to the subjects of author and reader. The aptly named Umberto Eco made the
same discovery of "echos of intertextuality" when he worte Il N ome della Rosa:
Ho riscoperto cosl ein ehe gli scrittori hanno sempre saputo (e ehe tante volte ci hanno detto): i
libri parlano sempre di altri libri e ogni storia racconta una storia gia raccontata. (Eco 1983, 19)
This may smack too much of the stuffy air of libraries, as if intertextuality were
only concerned with books, dusty volumes begotten from other dusty volumes.
But, after all, Aristotle's lost second book of the Poetics, the one on comedy, is
located at the mysterious centre of Eco's novel and his Bakhtinian Aristotle
opens up, in the theory of dialogical and carnivalesque subversion, the text to all
voices, not only those of the libraries, of poetry and learning (cf. Schick 1984).
No doubt, Eco, the learned professor of semiology, would agree with his colleague Roland Barthes, who has emphasized again and again that the intertext
"ne comprend pas seulement des textes delicatement choisis, secretement aimes,
libres, discrets, genereux, mais aussi des textes communs, triomphants" (Barthes
1975,51). For Barthes the intertext means both the text itself and the space
between all texts, in which we move, and cannot but move, all the time. As he
writes in Le Plaisir du texte:
Et c' est bien cela l'intertexte, l'impossibilite de vivre hors du texte infini - que ce texte soit Proust,
ou le journal quotidien, ou l'ecran televisuel. (Barthes 1973,59)
The "decentering" of the subject puts aside the old discourse of a "self" or of
"personal identiy" as threadbare idealist self-deceptions; the dissolution of the
boundaries of texts opens up each text to all other texts, even to the noise of the
ideologicalmachinery, the confusing din of the media and the subconscious
promptings or the clamour of consumerism. Taken together these components
214
M. Pfister
3. Postrrtodernist I ntertextuality
r
!
215
at least, hai! from it. As the new University Wits these postmodern poetae docti
produce both literary and critical texts and make these reflect upon each other.
However, they go beyond the mere personal union of the tradition al poet-critic
in that they aim at a new type of text that would deconstruct all distinctions
between poetic and theoretical discourse, between aesthetic practice and
theoretical reflection. The ideal-type postmodernist text is, therefore, a "metatext" , that is, a text about texts or textuality, an auto-reflective and auto-referential text, which thematizes its own textual status and the devices on which it is
based. At the thematic centre of this meta-communication of the postmodernist
text about itself we again and again find its intertextuality. This does not come as
a surprise, as, on the one hand, intertextuality is one of its central devices and, on
the other, intertextuality, which always involves some interpretative and perspectivizing reference to other texts, has in itself a meta-textual aspect.
A few examples will have to suffice. The tide story of John Barth's Lost in the
Funhouse (Barth 1968) is about a family outing to Ocean City. The story is,
however, again and again interrupted by the narrator's reflection on his way of
narrating it, and these meta-communicative digressions threaten to prevent the
telling of it altogether. The narrator permanendy loses his narrative thread and
gets lost in ever new reflections upon the various methods and structures of
narration he might employ. Thereby, the confusions and the loss of self, which
Ambrose, the hero of the story, undergoes in the maze of mirrors in the Luna
Park, become the central metaphor for the intertextual entanglements of the
narrator. He, like young Ambrose, gets lost in a maze of mirrors : in his case they
are the mirrors of other texts - by Aristode, Gustav Freytag, Dos Passos, J ames
J oyce and many others - which are made to mirror and reflect his own narrative
options, choices and dilemmas. The collection of stories as a whole also foregrounds intertextuality by systematically varying from story to story the underlying generic matrix, from myth, epic poetry and meditation to autobiography,
novel and short story. Moreover, the two texts at the centre of the collection
have tides that refer to the two most current metaphors of the poststructuralist
theory of intertextuality: the maze of mirrors in "Lost in the Funhouse" and the
echo chamber in "Echo". The most explicit reference to intertextualist theory is,
however, contained in the text with the tide "Tide" - a text which self-consciously thematizes its own "self-consciousness" (110) and loses itself so
thoroughly in the "mirror-maze" (108) of intertextual references and metatextual reflections that it never gets down to telling its story. It is here, transposed
from Barth's critical writings into his fictional text, that the central tenets of his
theory of a "Literature of Exhaustion" (Barth 1982; originally 1967) are explicidy referred to and made to justify the intertextual strategies of this story
collection:
The final possibility is to turn ultimacy, exhaustion, paralyzing self-consciousness and the adjective weigh~ of accumulated ... Go on. Go on. To turn ultimacy against itself to make something
new and valid, the essence whereof would be the impossibility of making something new. (106)
216
M. pfister
Using a narrative text by John Barth as an example, I have shown how explicit
meta-commentary and recurrent metaphors of mirrors and echo es can foreground intertextuality and thematize it in terms of poststructuralist theory. A
further device through which this can be achieved I shall illustrate - for brevity' s
sake - with reference to a poetic text. The poem I choose is by an American
author, who is still fairly unknown in Germany in spite of repeated efforts by
Eva Hesse to draw attention to hirn (Laughlin 1966; Hesse 1986) and who has so
far only played a very minor role in the debate on postmodernism, because he
has only quite recendy "postmodernized" hirnself. I am speaking of James
Laughlin, founder of the publishing firm N ew Directions and, since the Thirties,
simultaneously poet and publisher. As the most important American publisher
of international modernism he also published the works of Ezra Pound. His
own laconic verse, however, has for a long time resisted the modernist trends
towards a highly literate and erudite intertextuality, aiming rather at the popular
American idiom favoured by William Carlos Williams, another of his authors.
Laughlin's breakthrough to postmodernism only came in 1985 with a collection
of poems, the tide of wh ich already programmatically highlights their intertextuality: Stolen & Contaminated Poems. It was at this point that the latent intertextual entanglements of his previous poetry became first evident and that he
began to link hirns elf with poststructuralist theories.
A tide such as "The Deconstructed Man" (Laughlin 1985, 191-4) refers the
reader immediately to the poststructuralist framework of theory, which the
poem presupposes. The poem enacts the deconstruction of the speaker's personal identity and traces it back in Freudian terms to its beginnings in early
childhood, when the speaker was upder the care, both loving and strict, of his
mother:
I am the deconstructed man
my parts are scattered on the nursery Hoor
and can't be put together again because
the instruction book is lost
clean up your mess in the nursery my mother says
I am the deconstructed man (193)
Like Humpty-Dumpty in the nursery rhyme, the hero is smashed to smithereens beyond repair, and his adolescent and adult life, an odyssey of further
relationships with women, continues this process of disintegration and dispersion. The various stations of this erotic quest are modelIed throughout on literary paradigms, from Homer, Catullus, Cavalcanti and the operas of Mozart to
Pound, Eliot, Gertrude Stein and William Carlos Williams. His "Circes" are "a
list of fictions" (191), "a list of fictions of beautiful contradictions" (192), and his
erotic adventures are at the same time the adventures of areader. What I am
concerned with here, however, is not the mere density and range of intertextual
references, the polyglot plethora of quotations and the playfully learned footnotes identifying them. All this was already part of the modernist convention
inaugurated in Eliot's Waste Land.What I am concerned with is, rather, a par-
217
218
M. Pfister
ship between postmodernism and modernism, does not, however, take into
consideration the social context and the ideological affinities of postmodernist
art. We will address ourselves to this question now, looking at it again from the
angle of intertextuality.
Risking some degree of simplification, one could say that the pretexts of the
modernist text are normative. The intertextual dialogue may involve pretexts
from a wide range of epochs and cultures, but even within this wide range it is
always the canonized and "dassical" texts that are dearly privileged. If contemporary popular culture is referred to at all, it tends to be with a derogatory or
denigrating tone. When, for instance, T. S. Eliot in The Waste Land (lines
128-130) alludes to "that Shakespeherian Rag" "so elegant/So intelligent" - an
American ragtime song, that was a hit of the Ziegfeld's Follies in 1912 -, he does
so with the main intention of showing up the products of the entertainment
industry as trivial and banal. The song does not live up to the standard of the
other pretexts surrounding it: measured up against Shakespeare, Keats,
Baudelaire and Wagner it is dismissed as too lightweight, too shallow.
This act of granting a prerogative to the more prestigious pieces of our cultural
heritage is elegantly and resolutely done away with in the postmodernist text.
We have already seen how emphatically Roland Barthes pleaded for the intertextual equal rights of the noise of the mass media and the song of the muses.
American postmodernism goes one step further and even gives priority to the
myths and diches of pop culture over the time-honoured works of High Culture. The verbal garbage and the flood of images produced by an ever-growing
industry, set up to entertain our consumer society, thus become the privileged
pretexts of postmodernist art. In D9,nald Barthelme's novel Snow White, Dan,
one of the Seven Dwarfs in this tq:l.vesty of a fairy tale, lectures at large on verbal
garbage and refuse disposal, to arrive at the conclusion that "the question turns
from a question of disposing of' this 'trash' to a question of appreciating its
qualities" (Barthelme 1972, 97). This scrap heap aesthetics derives its nouveaux
frissons from the very materials which the poets of dassical mod~rnism had
disregarded and frowned upon in their elitist cultural claims, and which were
only discovered to have their own aesthetic attractions by the Pop Art of the
Fifties and later. "Garbage in, art out" - this is the motto given out by Barthelme
in an interview (Barthelme 1981, 202), and his own stories demonstrate brilliantly how garbage input can be recycled into art output.
One would, however, seriously misunderstand Barthelme, if one took his
motto to mean that under the directive of postmodernism trash is "in" and art is
"out". The question is not "Donald Duck or Dante", "tv commercials or Corneille", "fast food or haute cuisine". This question is beside the point in the
context of an aesthetics that is, after all, out to deconstruct evaluative hierarchies
of this kind. It is rather a matter of "Donald Duck and Dante" , "tv commercials
and Corneille", "fast food and haute cusine", for, according to this view, the one
is refuse and waste, as much as the other. Postmodernism's serenely unconcerned juxtaposition of Pop and dassics, of the media garbage of the present and
219
the cultural refuse of the past, has as its very aim the levelling down of all traditional distinctions between high and low. It makes no difference to an Andy
Warhol whether he uses the cliche image of Marilyn Monroe or that of Karl
Marx for his own purposes - for hirn, both are trivial icons of popular mythology, interchangeable and without historical depth. T. S. Eliot's vision of a
"simultaneous existence" and a "simultaneous order" of the great works of art
from all ages and cultures (Eliot 1953,23) is reprojected here in aperverse dis tortion that obliterates not only all historical differences, but together with it, all
value distinctions. The imaginary museum of postmodernism is a random medley of past and present, das sie and pop, art and commerce, all of them reduced to
the same status of disposable materials and surface stimuli.
"There is no message, only messengers, and that is the message" - this is how
Raymond Federman sums up the situation in an elegantly pointed paradox
(Federman 1981,25). Not even the medium is the message, as was still the case
for McLuhan; now the message is rather that all media and all carriers of messages are interchangeable, as their messages are no more than random and arbitrarily disposable constructs without any reference to reality or any bindihg
truth. It is in accordance with this view, when Paul, the poet among the Seven
Dwarfs in Barthelme's Snow White, regards the palinode, the poetic genre of
retraction, as his highest aspiration and his favourite form:
'Perhaps it is wrong to have favorites among the forms', he reflected. 'But retraction has a special
allure for me. I would wish to retract everything, if I could, so that the whole written would
be .. .' (Barthelme 1972, 13).
Such an all-comprehensive and universal palinode would rally all poetry and art
once more, only to dismiss its claims to authenticity and truth once and for allperhaps with a shrug of regret, but also with a sigh of relief. Thus, for instance,
the narrator makes the various items of Snow White's curriculum at a modern
college pass muster, ranging from "Modern Woman, Her Privileges and Responsibilities" through "Classical Guitar I" and "English Romantic Poets 11" to
"Theoretical Foundations of Psychology" and "Realism and Idealism in the
Contemporary Italian Novel" (25 f). The purely enumerative and additive form
of the catalogue and the heterogeneous abundance of its items suggest an image
of the American university as a huge self-service supermarket: here as there the
shelves overflow with commodities, and in both cases this does not create satiety
and tedium but the hectic euphoria of consumerism. Art is reduced to the status
of a commodity among many others and willingly submits itself not only to the
laws of "Warensthetik" (Haug 1976), demanding ever new and alluring packages for what remains essentially the same commodity, but also to the economic
laws of an ever increasing and accelerating circulation of goods. Where everything has the same value, nothing is of any value in the long run.1t is consistent
with this, that Federman refuses to disclose his sources and pretexts. Such a
gesture would ascribe a special rank, an authentie value and originality to them,
220
M. Pfister
which could only be illusionary "because there are no sacred sources for thinking and writing" (Federman 1975/6, 566).
"Anything goes": this formula, with which Lyotard has summed up the eclecticism of postmodernist intertextuality (Lyotard 1984, 76), is also written in
large letters across the "Golden Windows" of Robert Wilson's theatre. His
theatre is the theatre of Babel, the theatre of a heterogeneous plethora of different discourses. Therefore, his work in particular lends itself so readily to illustrate the nature of intertextuality in postmodernist theatre. The daydreams put
on stage by hirn are a collage of words, images and sounds taken from many
sources and put together with meticulous care. The selection of pretexts is almost random; their arrangement, however, is of great formal precision. After
all, Wilson does not quote or allude to them in order to engage in a dialogue with
their historical meaning or signification but to bring into play their sensuous
suggestiveness. Sensuousness, not sense is what his intertextual bricolage is concerned with, and therefore the sensuous qualities ofhis materials are emphasized
through precisely calculated juxtapositions, through haunting slow-motion effects or the hypnotic stillness of tableaux. (Pfister 1985 b)
Wilson's performances represent a new kind of "Gesamtkunstwerk" and as
such they employ all art forms, genres and styles - mime, ballet, music, opera,
film and the visual arts; fairy tale, science fiction and western; high tragedy,
history play, boulevard drama and masque; Surrealism, Minimal Art, Environment, operatic spectacle and Performance. Like Andy Warhol, he likes to use
characters or motifs taken from history or the present time that have already
been transformed into myths of the popular imagination - the hero of
psychoanalysis in The Life and Timf:s of Sigmund Freud (1969), the monstrous
tyrant in Li[e and Times o[Joseph Stalin (1973), the virtuous queen in A Letter
[or Queen Victoria (1974), the genius of science in Einstein on the Beach (1976),
the archetyp al inventor in Edison (1979) and Henry Ford and Rudolf Hess in
Death Destruction & Detroit (1979). Nothing is too sublime nor too trashy to be
received into Wilson's pop-pantheon, which competes with Madame Tussaud's
Waxworks and Disneyland in its serene disregard for historical perspective. For
instance, in the Cologne part of the CIVIL WarS project planned for the Olympic Games at Los Angeles in 1984, Frederick the Great drifted on floating ice in a
setting that suggested paintings by Caspar David Friedrich, or he sang on horseback the "Erlknig" by Goethe and Schubert. In the Roman part, Abraham
Lincoln strolled through a crowd of Hopi-Indians dancing to folksy music by
Philip Glass, and Garibaldi, supported by a choir of animals and with the Olympic torch in his hand, chanted verses by Seneca proclaiming world peace (Pfister
1988). 1986 it was Alcestis' turn: first Euripides' drama in Cambridge, Mass., in
a mise en scene that short-circuited Laser High-Tech with the resonances of
myth and showed the heroine, dressed in a neoclassical negligee, in the process
of dying on a modern marriage-bed to the accompaniment of country-andwestern music from the transistor radio; then Gluck's opera in Stuttgart, set in
some strange Bauhaus arcadia bathed in Schlemmer colours and streaked in
221
222
M. Pfister
the extent, however, that postmodernist art yields itself to what it should analyse
and criticise, it will become redundant and fall back behind the project of modernism. What is necessary, therefore, is a post-postmodernism that remains
resistent to these press ures of assimilation. It would have to find new ground in
those remnants of nature which have still managed to survive around us, and in
uso Here, in the material and psychological ecology, it might, perhaps, find its
Archimedian point of leverage.
Bibliography
Bachtin, Michail M.
1979
Die sthetik des Wortes. Ed. R. Grbel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Barth,John
Lost in the Funhouse. New York: Doubleday.
1968
"The Literature of Replenishment: Postmodern Fiction." Atlantic 245, 65-71.
1980
The Literature of Exhaustion and The Literature of Replenishment. N orthridge,
1982
Calif.: Lord J ohn Press.
Barthelme, Donald
1972
Snow White. N ew York: Atheneum.
1981
"The Art ofFiction." Paris Review 80, 180-210.
Barthes, Roland
1970
S/2. Paris: Seuil.
1973
Le Plaisir du texte. Paris: Seuil.
1975
Roland Barthes par Roland Barthes. Paris: Seuil.
Bloom, Harold
1973
The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford UP.
1975
A Map of Misreading. New York: Oxford UP.
1976
Poetry and Repression. New Haven: Yale UP.
Broich, Ulrich & Manfred Pfister, eds. I
1985
Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Butor, Michel
1969
"Suggestion." L'Arc39 (1969), 99-101.
Coward, Rosalind & J ohn Ellis
1977
Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cunliffe, Marcus, ed.
1975
American Literature since 1900. London: Barrie & J enkins/Sphere Books.
Derrida, Jacques
1973
"Avoir l'oreille de la philosophie." In 1. Finas et al., eds. Ecarts: Quatre essais a
propos deJacques Derrida. Paris: Fayard, 301-312.
Eco, Umberto
1983
"Postille a '11 norne della rosa"'. alfabeta 49, 19-22.
Eliot, Thomas Stearns
1953
"Tradition and the Individual Talent." Selected Prose. Ed. J. Hayward. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 21-30. ~
Federman, Raymond
1975/76
"Imagination as Plagiarism (an unfinished paper ... )." New Literary History 7,
563-578.
1981
"What are Experimental Novels and Why Are There So Many Left Unread?" Genre
14,23-31.
223
Fiedler, Leslie A.
.
1971
"The New Mutants." In The Collected Essays of Leslie Fiedler. Vol. 2. New York:
Stein and Day, 379-400.
1975
"Cross the Border- Close that Gap: Post Modernism. "In M. Cunliffe, ed., 344-366;
rpt. in Ptz & Freese, eds., 151-166.
Fokkema, Douwe W
1984
Literary History, Modernism and Postmodernism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La Litterature au second degre. Paris: Seuil.
Graff, Gerald
1973
"The Myth of the Postmodernist Breakthrough." Tri-Quarterly 26, 383-417.
Grivel, Charles
1978
"Les universaux de textes." Litterature 30, 25-50.
1982
"Theses preparatoires sur les intertextes. " In R. Lachmann, ed. Dialogizitt. Mnchen: Fink, 237-249.
Grbel, Rainer
1983
"Die Geburt des Textes aus dem Tod der Texte." In Schmid & Stempel, eds.,
205-271.
Hassan, Ihab
1971
"Postmodernism: A Paracritical Bibliography." New Literary History 3, 5-30.
1982
"Wars of Desire, Politics of the Word." Salmagundi 55,110-118.
Haug, Wolfgang R
1976
Kritik der Warensthetik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp (orig. 1971).
Hempfer, Klaus W.
1976
Poststrukturale Texttheorie und narrative Praxis. Mnchen: Fink.
1983
"berlegungen zu einem Gltigkeitskriterium fr Interpretationen und ein komplexer Fall: italienische Ritterepik der Renaissance." In K. W Hempfer & G. Regn,
eds. Interpretation: Das Paradigma der europischen Renaissance-Literatur:
Festschrift fr Alfred Noyer- Weidner zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner, 1-31.
Hesse, Eva
1986
"'Als ob ein Mann sein eigener Autor wre .. .': Gedanken ber J ames Laughlin,
Verleger und Dichter." Akzente 33, 338-346.
J ameson, Fredric
1984
"Postmodernism and Consumer Society." AmerikastudienlAmerican Studies 29
(1984),55-73.
Kloepfer, Rolf
1982
"Grundlagen des 'dialogischen Prinzips' in der Literatur." In R. Lachmann, ed.
Dialogizitt. Mnchen: Fink, 85-106.
Kristeva, J ulia
1967
"Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman." Critique 23, 438-465.
1969 a
Semeiotike: Rech erch es po ur une semanalyse. Paris: Seuil.
1969 b
"Narration et transformation." Semiotica 1, 422-448.
Laughlin, J ames
1966
Die Haare auf Grovaters Kopf Tr. Eva Hesse. Zrich: Verlag der Arche.
1985
Selected Poems 1935-1985. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Lyotard, J ean-F ran<;ois
1979
La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Minuit.
1984
The Postmodern Condition: AReport on Knowledge. Tr. G. Bennington & B. Massumi, pref. R J ameson. Minneapolis: U niversity of Minnesota Press.
2 2 4 M . Pfister
pfister, Manfred
1985 a
"Konzepte der Intertextualitt." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 1-30.
1985 b
"Robert Wilson's Metatheatre: Sense and Sensuousness in The Golden Windows." In
C. W. Thomsen, ed. Studien zur sthetik des Gegenwartstheaters. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter, 71-90.
1988
"Meta-Theater und Materialitt. Zu Robert Wilsons 'the CIVIL WarS'." In H. U.
Gumbrecht & K. L. Pfeiffer, eds. Materialitt der Kommunikation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 454-473.
Pound, Ezra
1975
The Cantos. London: Faber & Faber.
Ptz, Manfred & Peter Freese, eds.
1984
Postmodernism in American Literature: A Critical Anthology. Darmstadt: Thesen
Verlag.
Schick, Ulla
1984
"Erzhlte Semiotik oder intertextuelles Verwirrspiel? Umberto Ecos Il nome della
rosa." Poetica 16, 138-161.
Schmid, Wolf & Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds.
1983
Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualitt. Wien: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.
Schpp, Joseph C.
1985
,ccEndmeshed in endtanglements': Intertextualitt in Donald Barthelmes The Dead
Father." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 332-348.
Smirnov, I gor P.
1983
"Das zitierte Zitat." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 273-290.
Stierle, Karlheinz
1983
"Werk und Intertextualitt." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 7-26.
Stierle, Karlheinz & Rainer Warning, eds.
1984
Das Gesprch. Mnchen: Fink.
Strau, Botho
1977
Die Widmung. Mnchen: Hanser.
Warning, Rainer
1983
"Imitatio und Intertextualitt: Zur Geschichte lyrischer Dekonstruktion der Amortheologie." In K. W. Hempfer & G. Regn, eds. Interpretation: Das Paradigma der
europischen Renaissance~'Literatur: Festschrift fr AlJred Noyer- Weidner zum
60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 228-317.
Yeats, William Butler
1950
The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats. London: Macmillan, 2nd ed.
Zima, Peter v., ed.
1977
Textsemiotik als Ideologiekritik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
LINDA HUTCHEON
226
L. Hutcheon
M.
227
in other words, its politics. Chatterton is a novel ab out history and representation and ab out parody and plagiarism. As the tide suggests, here the focus of
representation (in history, biography, and art) is Thomas Chatterton, eighteenth-century poet and "forger" - that is, author of poems said to be by a
medieval monk. The novel posits that, contrary to official biographical his tory,
Chatterton did not die by suicide in 1770 at the age of 18 (thus becoming the
stereotypical representation of the gifted and doomed youthful genius). Instead,
two alternate vers ions are offered: that he died, not by suicide, but from an
accident produced by his inept and inexpert self-medication for VD; and that he
did not die at 18 at aIl, but faked his death to avoid being exposed as a fraud and
lived on to compose other great forgeries, such as the ones we know today as the
works of William Blake.
The official historical record is given on the first page of the novel, so we are
always aware of deviations from it, including the actual historical ones of Hen~
WaIlis's famous nineteenth-century painting of the death of Chatterton, m
which the image of the poet' s corpse was painted from a mdel:- the writer
George Meredith. The production of this painting provides a second line of plot
action. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century stories are then played off
against a contemporary one, also involving a poet (Charles Wychwood) who
finds a painting which he believes to represent the aged Chatterton. To add to
this already parodically complicated plot, Charles sometimes works for a writer
who is a plagiarizer and his wife is employed in an art gallery that deals in
forgeries.
. .
This novel is heavy with self-reflexive moments and unresolved SUSPICIOUS
coincidences that center around plagiarism, faking, forging, and parody. Chapter 6 is even narrated by Charterton, telling us how he "reproduc'd the Past" by
mixing the real and the fictive in a way reminiscent of the techniqu~ o~ Ch~tter
ton: "Thus do we see in every Line an Echoe, for the truest Plaglansm lS the
truest Poetry" (87). In a similarly self-conscious way, the historical record is
shown to be no guarantee of veracity. As Charles reads the various historical
versions of the life of Chatterton, he discovers that "each biography described a
quite different poet: even the simplest observation by one was contradicted by
another, so that nothing seemed certain" (127) - neither the subject nor the
possibility of knowing the past in the present. The postmodern condition ~ith
respect to his tory might weIl be described as one of the acceptance of radlcal
uncertainty: "Why should historical research not ... remain incomplete, existing as a possibility and not fading into knowledge?" (213). Supposedly real
documents - paintings, manuscripts - turn out to be forgeries; the beautiful
representations of death turn out to be lies. The novel ends ,:ith ~ po:werful
representation in words of the actual reality of death by arsemc pOlsonmg - a
death rather different from that "depicted" so beautifully by Wallis from his
(very living) model.
Many other novels today similarly challenge the concealed or unacknowledged politics and evas ions of aesthetic representation by using parody as a
228
L. Hutcheon
means to eonneet the present to the past without positing the transpareney of
representation, verbal or visual. For instanee, in a feminist parody of Leda and
the Swan, the protagonist of Angela Carter's Nights at the Circus (known as
Fevvers) beeomes "no Ion ger an imagined fietion but a plain fact" (1984,286)"the female paradigm," "the pure ehild of the eentury that just now is waiting in
the wings, the New Age in whieh no woman will be bound to the ground" (25).
The novel's parodie eehoes of Pericles, Harnlet and Gultiver's Travels all funetion as do those of Yeats's poetry when deseribing a whorehouse full of bizarre
women as "this lumber room of femininity, this rag-and-bone shop of the heart"
(69): they are all ironie feminizations of traditional or eanonie male representations of the so-ealled generie human - "Man." This is the kind of polities of
representation that parody ealls to our attention.
In objeeting to the relegation of the postmodern parodie to the ahistorieal and
empty realm of pastiehe (as deseribed by Jameson and Foster), I do not want to
suggest that there is not a nostalgie, neoeonservative recovery of past meaning
going on in a lot of eontemporary eulture; I just want to draw a distinetion
between that praetiee and postmodernist parody. The latter is fundamentally
ironie and eritieal, not nostalgie or antiquarian in its relation to the past. It denaturalizes our assumptions about our representations of that past: "History,
like nature, is no longer a one-dimensional value: history may eontradiet the
present, may put in doubt, may impose, with its eomplexity and its variety, a
ehoiee to be motivated eaeh sueeessive time" (Tafuri 1980, 20). Postmodern
parody is both deeonstruetively eritieal and eonstruetively ereative, paradoxieally making us aware of both the limits and the powers of representation - in
anymedium.
Sherrie Levine, the parodie Pierre Menard of the art world today, has stated
her reasons why parody is unav~idable for postmodernism:
Every ward, every image, is leased and mortgaged. We know that a picture is but aspace in which
a variety of images, none of them original, blend and dash. A picture is a tissue of quotations
drawn from the innumerable centers of culture ... The viewer is the tablet on which all the
quotations that make up a painting are inscribed without any of them being lost. (1987, 92)
When she photographs Egon Sehiele's self-portraits, she parodieally eites not
just the work of a speeifie artist, but the eonventions and myths of art-as-expression and points to the polities of that partieular view of representation.
Mark Tansey's parodie painting ealled The Innocent Eye Test takes on
another eanonieal form of representation. It presents the unveiling of Paulus
Potter's 1647 painting of a Young Bult, onee aeeepted as the paradigm of realist
art. But Tansey's parodieally realist reproduetion of this work is depieted as
being judged by a eow, for who better to adjudieate the sueeess of such "bullish"
realism and who better to symbolize ironieally the "innoeent eye" assumed by
mimetie theories of the transpareney of representation. (A mop is depieted at
ready, lest she "voiee" her opinion in material terms.) This is postmodern ironie
229
parody, using the eonventions of realism against themselves in order to foreground the eomplexity of representation and its implied polities.
,
Of course, parody was also a dominant mode of mueh modernist art, espe~ially in ~he writing ofT. S. Eliot, Thomas Mann, andJamesJoyee and the paintmg of Pieasso, Manet and Magritte. In this art, too, parody at onee inseribed
eonvention and his tory and yet distaneed itself from both. The eontinuity between the postmodernist and the modernist use of parody as a strategy of appropriating the past is to be found on the level of their shared eompromised
challenges to the institutions of representation (Barber 1983-4, 33). There are
signifieant differenees, however, in the final impact of the two uses of parody. It
is not that modernism was serious and signifieant and postmodernism is ironie
and parodie (Graff 1979, 55); it is more that postmodernism's irony is one that
"unlike the balaneed and resolving irony of modernism, refuses to fulfill the
expeetation of closure or provide the distaneing eertainty the literary [and artistie] tradition ... has inseribed in the eolleetive eonseiousness of Western readers" (Spanos 1987,216) - and viewers.
The unaeknowledged assumptions of that "eolleetive eonseiousness" are
what postmodernism sets out to uneover and deeonstruet: assumptions about
closure, distanee, artistie autonomy, and the apolitieal nature of representation.
In postmodernist parody, aeeording to Vietor Burgin:
modernist pretensions to artistic independence-have been further subverted by the demonstration of the necessarily 'intertextual' nature of the production of meaning; we can no Ion ger
unproblematically assurne that "Art" is somehow "outside" of the complex of other representational practices and institutions with which it is contemporary - particularly, today, those which
constitute what we so problematically call the "mass-media." (1986 a, 204)
-.,I
230
L. Hutcheon
irony and parody are themselves not unequivocal signs of disengagement on the part of an apolitical, transcendental ego that floats above historical reality or founders in the abysmal pull of
aporia. Rather a certain use of irony and parody may playa role both in the critique of ideology
and in the anticipation of a polity wherein commitment does not exclude but accompanies an
ability to achieve critical distance on one's deepest commitments and desires. (1987, 128).
Postmodern parodie strategies are often used by feminist artists to point to the
history and historical power of those cultural representations, while ironically
contextualizing both in such a way as to deconstruct them. When Sylvia Sleigh
parodies Velasquez's Rokeby Venus in her descriptively entided Philip Golub
Reclining, she de-naturalizes the iconographic tradition of the fern ale erotic
231
nude intended for male viewing through her obvious gender reversal: the male is
here represented as reclining, languorous and passive. The tide alone, though,
parodically contests the representation of specific yet anonymous women models as generic mythic figures of male desire. The postmodern version has the
historical specificity of a portrait. But it is not just the his tory of high-art representation that gets de-naturalized in postmodern parody: the 1988 Media Post
Media show (at the Scott Hanson Gallery in New York) presented mixed media
works that did parody the representational practices of high art (David Salle's)
but also those of the mass media (videos, ads). All 19 artists were women,
perhaps underlining the fact that women have more to win, not lose, by a critique of the politics of representation.
Some male artists have used parody to investigate their own complicity in
such apparatuses of representation, while still trying to find aspace for criticism,
however compromised. Victor Burgin's photography is one example of this
very postmodern form of complicitous critique. In one photo, from the series
The Bridge, he parodies John Everett Millais's Ophelia through a transcoding of
its female subject into a representation of a model in Ophelia's famous reclining
pose but portraying Kim Novak's representation of the character, Madeleine in
Hitchcock's Vertigo. This is no transparent realist representation: the water is
obviously cellophane (a parodie echo of Cecil Beaton's use of cellophane in his
fashion photography, according to Burgin [1987]) and the model is obviously
posed in a period-piece wig and dress. But this Ophelia/Madeleine/(fashion)
model figure is still represented as dead or dying and, given the context, also as
an enigma to be investigated obsessively by male voyeuristic curiosity. Burgin
admits (1987) to being a modernist-trained artist who wants to milk the density
and richness of art his tory in his photography, but he also wants to do two other
things: first, to use parody to throw off the "dead hand" of that art history and
its beliefs in eternal values and spontaneous genius; and second, to use the history of representation (here, in painting and in film) to comment critically on the
politics of the representation of women by men - including hirns elf.
The intersection of gender with class politics is a particular interest of Burgin's. In aseries of photographs parodying Edward Hopper's painting Office at
Night, he reinterprets this canonical icon in terms of the organization of sexuality within and for capitalism (Burgin 1986 b, 183). Hopper's depicted secretary
and her boss working late at the office come to represent all couples within a
capitalist patriarchal system of values: the man ignores the woman, whose clinging dress and full figure and yet downcast eyes manage to make her both seductive and modest. Burgin says that the representation of the man ignoring the
woman allows male viewers to look at and enjoy the pictured woman while
safely identifying with the man who does not. Burgin's Preparatory Work for
Office at Night self-reflexively updates to the present these representations and
their now problematized politics - in both gender and class terms.
When parody and its politics are discussed, it is not only this kind of visual art
that should be considered. Latin American fiction, for instance, has consistendy
232
L. Hutcheon
underlined the intrinsically political character of parody and its challenges to the
conventional and the authoritative (see Kerr 1987). The politics of representation and the representation of politics frequendy go hand in hand in parodic
postmodern historiographic metafiction. Parody becomes a way of ironically
revisiting the past - of both art and history - in a novellike Salman Rushdie's
Midnight's Children with its double parodic intertexts : Grass's The Tin Drum
and Sterne's Tristram Shandy. Both parodies politicize representation, but in
very different ways. As Patricia Merivale (1985) has noted, Midnight's Children
trans codes all the German social, cultural and historical detail of Grass' s novel
into Indian terms. In addition, Saleem Sinai shares everything from litde Oskar's
physical strangeness to his withdrawn alienated position with regard to his society. Both tell their stories to someone else and both offer literally self-begetting
novels, Bildungsromane which show how they are "handcuffed to history," to
use Saleem's phrase. The representation of politics is here achieved through the
overt politicizing and historicizing of the act of representing.
Both Saleem's and Oskar's stories have Shandian openings - or non-openings
- and both narrators echo Sterne' s much earlier parody of narrative conventions.
In Rushdie's text, however, the intertextual presence of Tristram Shandy does
more than simply work to undercut Saleem's megalomaniac attempts at ordering and systematizing by reminding us of the inevitability of contingency; it also
points to the Empire, the imperialist British past, that is literally apart of India's
self-representation as much as of Saleem's. The structure of the parody enables
that past to be admitted as inscribed, but also subverted at the same time. The
literary inheritance of an Indian writing in English is inescapably double, as
Omar Khayam in Rushdie's Shame comes to see so clearly. Similar political
paradoxes underlie the use of p'l-rody in black American writing as well. Ishmael
Reed has parodied the historical novel (Flight to Canada), the western (Yellow
Back Radio Broke-Down), the'detective story (Mumbo Jumbo), Dickens (The
Terrible Twos), and Uncle Tom's Cabin (Flight to Canada), but always within a
political context that points to what the dominant white traditions silence: the
representations both of blacks and by blacks - the entire Afro-American literary
tradition of the past and the present (see Gates 1984, 302, 311; Foley 1986, 259).
A similar critical contextualizing and appropriating of the past and its representational practices can be seen in the visual arts to~, for instance, in the San
Francisco Museum of Modern Art's Second Sight show where Mark Tansey
showed his painting entided The Triumph o[ the N ew York Schoo!. The parodies
operating here are multiple. The tide refers to Irving Sandler's well-known textbook, The Triumph o[ American Painting. But the work itself ironically
literalizes this tide: members of the French army (looking like Picasso,
Duchamp, Apollinaire, and Leger) surrender their outdated arms to the technically superior American forces (whose officers represented includeJackson Pollock, element Greenberg, and Barnett Newman). Tansey's overall composition
is a parody of Velasquez's Surrender o[ Breda (1634) which represents both a
specific act of chivalry in the Thirty Years' War and a more general glorification
233
of war through art (BeaI1986, 9). Here all that is ironically inverted and placed in
an entirely different context.
Is there a problem of aceessibility here, however? Wh at if we do not recognize
the represented figures or the parodied composition? The tide, I suppose, does
alert us to the place to look for a means of access - Sandler' s textbook. This
functions much as do the acknowledgement pages of postmodern parodic ficti on (such as Berger's G., Thomas's The White Hotel, Banville's Doctor Copernicus). These may not provide all the parodic allusions, but they teach us the
rules of the game and make us alert to other possibilities. This is not to deny,
however, that there exists a very real threat of elitism or lack of access in the use
of parody in any art. This question of accessibility is undeniably part of the
politics of postmodern representation. But it is the complicity of postmodern
parody - its inscribing as weIl as undermining of that which it parodies - that is
central to its ability to be understood. This may explain the frequent parodic
reappropriation of mass-media images in particular by many postmodern
photographers: there is no need to know the entire history of art to understand
the critique of these representations. All you have to do is look around you. But
some artists want to use parody to recover that high-art history to~, to reconnect the representational strategies of the present with those of the past, in order
to critique both. As Martha Rosler puts it:
At certain historical junctures, quotation [or what I have called parody] allows a defeat of alienation, an asserted reconnection with obscured traditions. Yet the elevation of an unknown or
disused past emphasizes a rupture with the immediate past, a revolutionary break in the supposed
stream of history, intended to destroy the credibility of the reigning historie al ac counts - in favor
of the point of view of history's designated losers. The homage of quotations is capable of signalling nbt self-effacernent hut rather a strengthening or consolidating resolve. (1981, 81)
Rosler's challenge to social and economic history through a parody of the history of photography does indeed offer a new way to represent "history's designated losers." The financial and artistic success of the American documentary
art of the 1930s in contrast to its subjects' continuing conditions of poverty and
misery is part of the historical context that formal parody calls up in her series,
The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems.
One view of such ironie appropriation of existing representations claims that
this kind of parody presumes "a widespread cultural agreement aboutwhat constitutes great art" (Goldberg 1988, 24). While this might offer a context for
Picasso's parodic play with Velasquez's Las Meninas, it certainly does not account for the appropriation of mass-media and popular art forms in postmodern
photography. Does parody really assurne such an evaluative notion as a tradition of masterpieces ? Or does it simply assurne recognition of previous representations from the hints embodied in the work? Perhaps from a modernist
poin t of view, a "tradition must be generally acknowledged if an artist is to draw
strength from it, pretend to improve upon it, or implicidy criticize it" (Goldberg
1988,24), but in a postmodern age in which all such general acknowledgements
234
L. Hutcheon
are suspect, when all institutions are under scrutiny, we must ask "generally
acknowledged" by whom? In whose interest? Why? These questions explain, I
think, the recourse to non-high-art, non- "traditional" images - that is, from
mass-media and popular art - in much photographic parody today. It is these
representations as much as those "masterpieces" that determine how we see
ourselves and our world.
American artist Barbara Kruger appropriates this kind of image and uses its
formal complicity with capitalist and patriarchal representational strategies to
foreground conflictual elements through ironic contradictions. Parody, she asserts, allows for some distance and critique, especially of notions such as "competence, originality, authorship and property" (Kruger 1982, 90). Certain of
Vincent Leo' s works may look like derivative variations or pastiches of the work
of Robert Frank- and they are. They are cut-up collages of reproductions from
Frank's canonical book of photographs The Americans. It has been argued that
this kind of parodic play has its own complex politics of representation: it points
to the legions of contemporary photographers who unreflectively copy the canonical icons and their techniques; it undercuts the myth and mystique of originality in art; it works to recall the his tory of photography by literally using the
past as the building blocks of the present; and it comments critically on the
canonical status of photographers like Frank within the art institution (Solomon-Godeau 1984, 83).
Parody in postmodern art is more than just a sign of the attention artists pay to
each others' work (cf. Barber 1983-4, 32) and to the art of the past.1t may indeed
be complicitous with the values it inscribes as well as subverts, but the subversion is still there: the politics of postmodern parodic representation is notthe
same as that of most rock videos,' use of allusions to standard film genres or texts
(Kaplan 1987, 34-5). This is what should be called pastiche, according to Jameson's definition. In postmodern parody, the doubleness of the politics of authorized transgression remains intact: there is no dialectic resolution or recuperative evasion of contradiction. The postmodern recognizes that, in Craig
Owens's terms, "a certain calculated duplicity" may be indispensable today as a
"deconstructive tool" (1984, 7).
Bibliography
Ackroyd, Peter
1987
Chatterton. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Banville, J ohn
1976
Doctor Copernicus. New York: Norton.
Barber, Bruce Alistair
1983-4
"Appropriation/Expropriation: Convention or Invention?" Parachute 33, 29-39.
Beal, Graham W. J.
1986
"A Little History." In Second Sight (Biennial IV Catalogue). San Francisco: San
Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 1-11.
235
Benjamin, Walter
1969
"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." In Hannah Arendt, ed.
Illuminations. Tr. Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken, 217-51.
Berger, John
1972 a
Ways of Seeing. London: BBC/Harmondsworth: Penguin.
1972 b
G. New York: Pantheon.
Buchloh, Benjamin H. D.
1984
"Figures of Authority, Ciphers of Regression: Notes on the Return of Representation in European Painting." In Brian Wallis, ed. Art After Modernism: Rethinking
Representation. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art/Boston: Godine,
106-35.
Burgin, Victor
1986a
The End of Art Theory: Criticism and Postmodernity. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Humanities Press International.
Between. Oxford: Blackwell.
1986b
1987
"Theory in Practice." Lecture, Art Gallery of Ontario, 9 September.
Carter, Angela
1984
Nights at the Circus. London: Picador.
de Lauretis, Teresa
1987
Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction. Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana UP.
Doctorow, E. L.
1975
Ragtime. New York: Random House.
Eco, Umberto
1983
The Name of the Rose. Tr. William Weaver. New York: Harcourt/Brace/
Jovanovich.
Foley, Barbara
1983
"From USA to Ragtime: Notes on the Forms of Historical Consciousness in Modern Fiction." In Richard Trenner, ed. E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations.
Princeton: Ontario Review Press, 158-78.
1986
Tellin~ the Truth: The Theory and Practice of Documentary Fiction. Ithaca, NY /
London: Cornell UP.
Foster, HaI
1985
Recodings: Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics. Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press.
Gates, Henry Louis, Jr.
1984
"The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique of the Sign and the Signifying Monkey." In
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ed. Black Literature and Literary Theory. London/New
York: Methuen, 285-321.
Goldberg, Vicki
1988
"The Borrowers: How They Play the Game of Appropriation Today." American
Photographer (May), 24-5.
Graff, Gerald
1979
Literature Against Itself. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Grass, Gnther
1962
The Tin Drum, tr. Ralph Manheim. New York: Pantheon.
Hutcheon, Linda
1985
A Theory of Parody: The Teachings ofTwentieth-Century Art Forms. London/New
York: Methuen.
Jameson, Fredric
1983
"Postmodernism and Consumer Society." In HaI Foster, ed. The Anti-Aesthetic:
Essays on Postmodern Culture. Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press, 111-25.
Kaplan, E. A.nn
~
1987
Rocking Around the Clock: Music, Television, Post-Modernism and Consumer Culture. London/New York: Methuen.
236
L. Hutcheon
Kerr, Lucille
.
.
.
1987
Suspended Fictions: Reading Novels by Manuel Puzg. Urbana/Chlcago, Ill.: Umversity of Illinois Press.
Kruger, Barbara
1982
"'Taking' Pictures: Photo-Texts by Barbara Kruger." Screen 23.2, 90-4.
LaCapra, Dominick
1987
History, Politics, and the Novel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.
Levine, Sherrie
' ..
1987
"Five Comments." In Brian Wallis, ed. Blasted Allegories: An Anthology ofWrtttngs
by Contemporary Artists. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art/Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 92-3.
Malen, Lenore
1988
"The Politics of Gender." In The Politics of Gender (Catalogue). New York:
Queensborough Community College, CUNY-Bayside, NY, 7-11.
Merivale, Patricia
..
"
1985
'''Handcuffed to History': Midnight's Children and the Pseudo-Hlstoncal Novel.
Paper, McMaster University, 27 November.
Owens, Craig
.
"
1980
"The Allegorical Impulse: Toward a Theory ofPostmodermsm: Part 1. October 12,
67-86.
.
1984
"Posing." In Difference: On Representation and Sexuality (Catalogue). New York:
New Museum of Contemporary Art, 6-17.
Reed, Ishmael
1969
Yellow Back Radio Broke-Down. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1972
MumboJumbo. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1976
Flight to Canada. New York: Random House.
1982
The Terrible Twos. New York: St. Martin's.
Roberts, David
.
..
1985
"Parody's Pretexts: Introduction." In Pavel PetriDavld Roberts/PhIllp Thoms~n,
eds. Comic Relations: Studies in the Comic, Satire and Parody. Frankfurt am Mam/
Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 183-5.
RosIer, Martha
I
1981
3 works. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia College of Art and DesIgn.
Rushdie, Salman
1982
Midnight's Children. London: Picador.
1984
Shame. London: Picador.
Solomon-Godeau, Abigail
.
1984
"Photography After Art Photography." In Brian Wallis, ed. Art After Modermsm:
Rethinking Representation. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art/Boston: Godine, 74-85.
Spanos, William V.
. .
.
1987
Repetitions: The Postmodern Occaswn tn Ltterature and Culture. Baton Rouge,
Lousiana: Lousiana State UP.
Stephens, Walter E.
1983
"Ec[h]o in Fabula." Diacritics 13.2., 51-64.
Sterne, Laurence
.
1967
The Life and Opinions ofTristram Shandy. Harmondsworth: Pengum.
Tafuri, Manfredo
1980
Theories and History of Architecture. London: Granada.
Thomas, D. M.
1981
The White Hotel. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wolf, Christa
1984
Cassandra: A Novel and Four Essays. Tr. Jan Van Heurck. London: Virago.
HANS-PETER MAI
Individual Studies
Almeida,Ivan
"Trois cas de rapport intra-textuels: La citation, la parabolisation, Ie commentaire."
Semiotique & Bible 15,23-42.
Altman, Charles F.
1979
1981
Angenot, Marc
1983
1983
238
H. P. Mai
Arrive, Michel
"Pour une theorie des textes poly-isotopiques." Langages 8/31, 53-63. - German tr.:
1973
"Zu einer Theorie der poly-isotopen Texte." In Richard Brtting & Bernhard Zimmermann. Theorie - Literatur - Praxis: Arbeitsbuch zur Literaturtheorie seit 1970.
Frankfurt: Athenaion, 1975, 108-122.
"Intertexte et intertextualite chez Ferdinand de Saussure. " In Raimund Theis &
1986
Hans T. Siepe, eds. Le Plaisir de l'intertexte: Formes et fonctions de l'intertextualite
(Roman populaire - Surrealisme - Andre Gide - N ouveau Roman). Frankfurt/Bernl
New York: Peter Lang, 11-31 (rpt. 1988).
Baetens, J an
1987
"Intertextualiteit (anders) bekeken." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2, 61-68.
Barthes, Roland
1968
"Lamort de l'auteur." Manteia 5,12-17. -Engl. tr.: "The Death of the Author." In
Stephen Heath, ed. Image - Music - Text. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins I New York:
Hi1l&Wang, 1977, 142-148.-Rpt. in: Barthes. The Rustle ofLanguage. New York:
Hill & Wang, 1986, 49-64. - Also in: David Lodge, ed. Modern Criticism and
Theory. New York/London: Longman, 1988, 167-172.
"De l'oeuvre au texte." Revue d'Esthetique 24,225-232. - Engl. tr.: "From Work to
1971
Text." Image - Music- Text. Ed. Stephen Heath. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins I New
York: Hill & Wang, 1977, 155-164. - Also in: Josuev. Harari, ed. Textual
Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell UP,
1979,73-81. - Rpt. in: Barthes. The Rustle of Language. New York: Hill & Wang,
1986, 56-64.
"Texte (Theorie du)." Encyclopaedia Universalis. Vol. 15. Paris: Encydopaedia Uni1973
versalis France, 1013-1017. - Engl. tr.: "Theory of the Text." In Robert Young, ed.
Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader. Boston/London/Henley: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1981,31-47.
Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de & Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler
1981
Introduction to Text Linguistics. London/New York: Longman. - German version:
Einfhrung in die Textlinguistik. Tbingen: M. Niemeyer, 1981.
Bennett, David
.
1987
"Wrapping Up Postmodernism: The Subject of Consumption Versus the Subject of
Cognition." Textual Practice 1,243-261.
Ben-Porat, Ziva
1976
"The Poetics ofLiterary Allusion." PTL: AJournalfor Descriptive Poetics & Theory
of Literature 1, 105-128. - Polish tr.: "Poetyka aluzji literackiej." Pamietnik
Literacki 79,1988,315-337.
"The Poetics of Allusion - A Text Linking Device - In Different Media of Com1979
munication (Literature Versus Advertising andJournalism)." In Seymour Chatman
et al., eds. A Semiotic Landscape: Proceedings of the First Congress of the InternationalAssociation for Semiotic Studies, Milan,fune 1974. Paris/New York: Mouton,
588-593.
1985
"Intertextuality." Ha Si/rut 2/34,170-178 [in HebrewJ.
Bilous, Daniel
1983
"Intertexte/Pastiche: L'intermimotexte." Texte 2, 135-160.
Bjornson, Richard
1980
"Translation and Literary Theory." Translation Review 6 (Winter), 13 -16.
Blnsdorf, Jrgen
1986
"Senecas Apocolocyntosis und die Intertextualittstheorie." Poetica 18, 1-26.
Bolter, J ay David
1989
"Beyond Word Processing: The Computer as a New Writing Space." Language &
Communication 9,129-142.
Boyarin, Daniel
"Old Wine in New Bottles: Intertextuality and Midrash." Poetics Today 8, 539-556.
1987
239
240
"Riffaterre and the Semiotics of Poetry." The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature,
Deconstruction. London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul, 80-99.
D'Ippolito, Gennaro
1988
"Semiologia e Quellenforschung: Origine, sviluppo, applicazioni del concetto di intertestualita." In Michael Herzfeld & Lucio Melazzo, eds. Semiotic Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the lASS Palermo, 1984. Vol.
1. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 441-453.
Dllenbach, Lucien
1976
"Intertexte et autotexte. " Pohique 7127, 282-296.
Delorme,J.
"Le discours de l'intertextuali! dans le discours exegetique." Semiotique & Bible 15,
1979
56-62.
deMan, Paul
1981
"Hypogram and Inscription: Michael Riffaterre' s Poetics of Reading." Diacritics 11,
17-35. - Rpt. in: de Man. The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1986,27-53.
Dembowski, Peter
1981
"Intertextualite et critique des textes." Litterature no. 41, 17-29.
Deming, Robert H.
1986
"Theorizing Television: Text, Textuality, Intertextuality." Journal of Communication Inquiry 10/3,32-44.
Dupriez, Bernard
"The Semiotics of Rhetoric: Definition." In ThomasA. Sebeok, ed. Encyclopedic
1986
Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter,
819-831.
Eco, Umberto
1986
"Casablanca: Cult Movies and Intertextual Collage." Travels in Hyperreality: Essays. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 197-211 (orig.
1984).
Eisenzweig, U ri
"Un concept plein d'interets." Texte 2,161-170.
1983
Emberley, Julia
I
1988
"The Pain of the Text-Anger: Intertextuality: Gender." Tessera 11,125-135.
Ette, Ottmar
"Intertextualitt: Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmer1985
kungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift fr Literaturgeschichte 9,497-522.
Evseev, Ivan
"Intertextualitatea simbolului arhetipal." Caiet de Semiotica 2,27-37.
1983
Feral,}.
1980
"Kristevian Semiotics: Towards a Semanalysis." In R. W. Bailey & L. Matejka & P.
Steiner, eds. The Sign: Semiotics Around the World. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan
Slavic Publications, rev. ed., 271-279.
Firmat, Gustavo Perez
1978
"Apuntes para un modelo de la intertextualidad en literatura." Romanic Review 69,
1-14.
Frank, Armin Paul
1987
"Literarische bersetzung und Intertextualitt." Poetica 19, 190-194.
Frawley, William
1985
"Intertextuality and the Dictionary: Toward a Deconstructionist Account of Lexicography." Dictionaries 7,1-20.
Freadman, Anne
1983
"Riffaterra Cognita: A Late Contribution to the Formalism Debate." SubStance no.
42,31-45.
1981
H.P.Mai
Frow,John
1986
1990
241
"Intertextuality." M arxism and Literary History . Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 125 -169.
"Intertextuality and Ontology." In Michael Worton & Judith Still, eds. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester/New York: Manchester Up, 45-55.
Geier, Manfred
1985
"Zur Orientierung: Vom Text zum Intertext: ber Mglichkeiten des Schreibens
zwischen Autonomie und Abhngigkeit." Die Schrift und die Tradition: Studien zur
Intertextualitt. Mnchen: Fink, 9-16.
Genette, Gerard
1982
Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre. Paris: Seuil.
1983
"Transtextualites." Magazine Litteraire 192,40-41.
1988
"Structure and Functions of the Tide in Literature. " CriticalInquiry 14, 692-720.
Gietema, Erika
1988
"Narrenfreiheit oder Subversion? Versuch einer Funktionalisierung des Intertextualittsbegriffs bei Arno Schmidt in Richtung auf die humoristische Subjektivitt."
Neophilologus 72, 418-433.
Glowinski, Michal
1986
"0 Intertekstualnosci." Pamietnik Literacki 77,75-100.
Goyet, Francis
1987
"Imitatio ou intertextualite? (Riffaterre Revisited)." Pohique 18/71,313-320.
Greimas, AIgirdasJulien & Joseph Courtes
1979
"Intertextualite." Semiotique: Dictionnaire raisonne de la theorie du langage. Paris:
Classiques Hachette, 194. - Engl. tr.: Semiotics and Language: An Analytical
Dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana Up, 1982.
Grivel, Charles
1975
"Quant a l'intertexte: Plan d'un livre ou possible ou futur." In Melanges de linguistique et de litterature offerts aLein Geschiere par ses amis, collegues et eleves. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 153-180.
1978
"Les universaux de texte." Litterature no. 30,25-50.
1982
"Theses preparatoires sur les intertextes." In Lachmann, ed., 237-248.
1983
"Serien textueller Perzeption: Eine Skizze." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 53-83.
Grbel, Rainer
1983
"Die Geburt des Textes aus dem Tode der Texte: Strukturen und Funktionen der
Intertextualitt in Dostoevskijs Roman Die Brder Karamazov im Lichte seines
Mottos." In Schmidt & Stempel, eds., 205-271.
Guillerm, Luce
1984
"L'intertextualite demontee: Le discours sur la traduction." Litterature no. 55,
54-63.
Hambridge, J oan
1986
"Intertekstualiteit versus inter-tekstualiteit." Standpunte 39, 35-43.
Hand, Sean
1990
"Missing You: Intertextuality, Transference and the Language of Love." In Michael
Worton & Judith Still, eds. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. ManchesteriNew
York: Manchester Up, 79-91.
Hartman, Geoffrey
1976
"Literary Criticism and Its Discontents." CriticalInquiry 3, 203-220.
Harty,E.R.
1985
"Text, Context, Intertext." Journal of Literary Studies 112, 1-13.
Hatten, Robert S.
1985
"The Place of Intertextuality in Music Studies." American Journal of Semiotics 3/4,
69-82.
Hebel, UdoJ.
1989
Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical
Studies. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
242
H.P.Mai
Hempfer, Klaus W.
1976
Poststrukturale Texttheorie und narrative Praxis: Tel Quel und die Konstitution eines Nouveau Nouveau Roman. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Heyndels, Ralph
1983
"Intertexte, institution, pedagogie." Neohelicon 10, 301-309.
Holland, Michael
1983
"De l'intertextualite: Metacritique." Texte 2, 177-192.
Houdebine, J ean-Louis
"Premiere approche de la notion de texte." In Tel Quel, ed. Theorie d'ensemble.
1968
Paris: Seuil, 270-284. - German tr.: "Erste Annherung an den Begriff Text." In Tel
Quel, ed. Die Demaskierung der brgerlichen Kulturideologie: Marxismus Psychoanalyse-Strukturalismus. Mnchen: Kindler, 1971, 110-124.
Houppermans, S.
1987
"Subject en intertekst." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2, 43-51.
Hutcheon, Linda
"Literary Borrowing ... and Stealing: Plagiarism, Sources, Influences, and Inter1986
texts." English Studies in Canada 12,229-239.
1987
"Intertextuality." In Erik Barnouw, ed. International Encyclopedia of Communications. New York: Oxford Up, 349-351.
Idt, Genevieve
1984
'''Intertextualite', 'transposition', critique des sources. " Nova Renascem;a 13, 5-20.
Ille, Hans-Jrgen
1988
"Desiderio Navarro zum Begriff der Intertextualitt." Beitrge zur romanischen
Philologie 27, 307-308.
"Intertextualitt. "
1988
In Werner Habicht et al., eds. Der Literatur-Brockhaus. Vol. 2. Mannheim: F. A.
Brockhaus, 262.
J ardine, Alice
"Intertextuality." In ThomasE. Sebeok, ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics.
1986
Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 387-389.
.
J efferson, Ann
1980
"Intertextuality and the Poetics of Fiction." Comparative Criticism: A Yearbook 2,
235-250.
"Structuralism and Post,-Structuralism." In Ann Jefferson & David Robey, eds.
1982
Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. Totowa, N.].: Barnes &
Noble, 84-112.
Jenny, Laurent
1976
"La strategie de la forme." Poitique 7/27, 257-281. - Engl. tr.: "The Strategy of
Form." In Tzvetan Todorov, ed. French Literary Theory Today: AReader. Cambridge: Cambridge UP IParis: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de I'Homme, 1982,
34-63. - Polish tr.: "Strategia formy." Pamietnik Literacki 79, 1988,265-295.
Jensen, Svend B0ggild
1982
"Kulturanalyse og Intertekstualitet." Litteratur og Samfund 35, 17-29.
Johnson, Christopher M.
1988
"Intertextuality and the Psychical Model." Paragraph 11 (March), 71-89.
Junker, Hedwig
1987
"Die Mauerschau. " In Arnold Arens, ed. Text-Etymologie: Untersuchungen zu
Textkrper und Textinhalt: Festschrift fr Heinrich Lausberg zum 75. Geburtstag.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 157-162.
Kablitz, Andreas
..
1985
"Intertextualitt und die Nachahmungslehre der italienischen Renaissance: Uberlegungen zu einem aktuelle~ Begriff aus historischer Sicht (I)." Italienische Studien 8,
27-38.
243
"Intertextualitt und die Nachahmungslehre der italienischen Renaissanc~: berlegungen zu einem aktuellen Begriff aus historischer Sicht (II)." Italienische Studien 9,
19-35.
Kapp, Volk er
"Intertextualite et rhetorique des citations." In Marc-Mathieu Mnch, ed. Recher1984
ches sur l'histoire de la poitique. Nancy: Lang, 237-254.
Karbusicky, Vladimir
1983
"Intertextualitt in der Musik." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 361-398.
Karrer, Wolfgang
.
1985
"Intertextualitt als Elementen- und Struktur-Reproduktion." In Broich & Pfister,
eds., 98-116.
Kibedi Varga, Aron
1982
"Le roman est un anti-roman." Litterature no. 48, 3-20.
1984
"Pour une histoire intertextuelle de la litterature. " Degres 12/40, gl-g10.
Kloepfer, Rolf
1982
"Grundlagen des 'dialogischen Prinzips' in der Literatur." In Lachmann, ed.,
85-106.
Konstantinovic, Zoran
1982
"Verwandlung im Wandel: Komparatistische Betrachtungen zur Kategorie der
Dialogizitt und Alteritt." In Lachmann, ed., 168-184.
..
Koppenfels, Werner von
1985
"Intertextualitt und Sprachwechsel: Die literarische Ubersetzung." In Broich &
Pfister, eds., 137-158.
Kristeva, Julia
"Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman." Critique 33/239, 438-465. - Rpt. in:
1967
Kristeva. Semeiotike: Rech erch es pour une semanalyse . Paris: Seuil, 1969, 143 -173. Engl. tr.: "Word, Dialogue and Novel." In Kristeva. Desire in Language: A Semiotic
Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia Up,
1980,64-91. - Also in: Kristeva. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: B.
Blackwell, 1986,34-61. - German tr.: "Bachtin, das Wort, der Dialog und der Roman." In Jens Ihwe, ed. Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Vol. 3. Frankfurt: Athenum, 1972,345-375.
"Problemes delastructuration du texte." Nouvelle Critique (Nov), 55-64.-Rpt. in:
1968
Tel Quel, ed. Theorie d' ensemble. Paris: Seuil, 298 -317. - German tr. : "Probleme der
Textstrukturation." In Tel Quel, ed. Die Demaskierung der brgerlichen Kulturideologie: Marxismus - Psychoanalyse - Strukturalismus. Mnchen: Kindler,
1971, 135-154. - Rpt. in: H. Blumensath, ed. Strukturalismus in der Literaturwissenschaft. Kln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1972, 243-262. - Rpt. in: Jens Ihwe, ed.
Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Vol. 2. Frankfurt: Athenum, 1972,484-507. - !tal. tr.: "Problemi della strutturazione del testo."
In Kristeva. Materia e senso: Pratiche significanti e teoria dellinguaggio. Torino:
Einaudi, 1980,3-26.
"Le texte eIos." Langages 3/12, 103-125. - Rpt. in: Kristeva. Semeiotike: Recherches
1968
po ur une semanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969, 113-142. - Engl. tr.: "The Bounded Text."
In Kristeva. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Ed.
LeonS. Roudiez. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980, 36-63. - German tr.: "Der geschlossene Text." In Peter V. Zima, ed. Textsemiotik als Ideologiekritik. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1977, 194-229.
1969
Semeiotike: Recherches po ur une semanalyse. Paris: Seuil. - !tal. tr.: Semeiotike:
Ricerche per una semanalisi. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1978.
1969
"Narration et transformation." Semiotica 1, 422-448.
1970
Le texte du roman: Approche semiologique d'une structure discursive transformationelle. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
244
H. P. Mai
245
Lindner, Monika
1985
"Integrationsformen der Intertextualitt." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 116-135.
Link, Jrgen
1984
"Interdiscourse, Literature, and Collective Symbols: Theses Towards a Theory of
Discourse and Literature." Enditic 8,157-165.
Logan, Marie Rose
1981
"L'intertextualite au carrefour de la philologie et de la poetique." Litterature no. 41,
47-49.
Magureanu, Anca
1985
"Intertextualitate si comunicare." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 10-17.
Manea, Dana
"0 delimitare a conceptului de 'intertextualitate'." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36,
1985
18-24.
Markiewicz, Henryk
1988
"Odmiany intertekstualnosci." Ruch Literacki 29,245-263.
Martens, Gunter
1989
"Was ist ein Text? Anstze zur Bestimmung eines Leitbegriffs der Textphilologie. "
Poetica 21,1-25.
Mihaila, Ecaterina
"Text si intertextualitate." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 34-42.
1985
Mihaila, Rodica
"Titlul, metatext si intertext. " Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 73- 81.
1985
Miller,Owen
1985
"Intertextual Identity." In Mario J. Valdes et aL, eds. I dentity of the Literary Text.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 19-40.
Morgan, Thais E.
"Is There an Intertext in This Text? Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to
1985
Intertextuality." American Journal of Semiotics 3/4, 1-40.
N et, Mariana
1983
"Towards a Pragmatics of Poetic Intertextuality." Cahiers de Linguistique Theorique & Appliquee 20,159-162.
Nicolaisen, W. I. H.
1986
"Names as Intertextual Device." Onomastica Canadiana 68, 58-66.
Nubert, Roxana
"Zur Intertextualittspoetik: Ergebnisse der neuesten Forschung." Caiet de semi1986
otica 5, 63-74.
Orr, Leonard
"Intertextuality and the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics." College English 48,
1986
811-823.
Paulson, William R.
The Noise of Culture: Literary Texts in a World of Information. Ithaca/London:
1988
Cornell UP.
Pavis, Patrice
1987
"Production, Reception, and the Social Context." In Anna Whiteside & Michael
Issacharoff, eds. On Referring in Literature. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana
Up, 122-137.
Pechey, Graham
1982
"Bakhtin, Marxism, and Post-Structuralism." The Politics ofTheory: Proceedings of
the Essex Conference on the Sociology of Literature, July 1982. Colchester: University of Essex, 234-247.
Perri, Carmela
"On Alluding." Poetics 7,289-307.
1978
Perrone-Moises, Leyla
"L'intertextualite critique." Pohique 7/27, 372-384.
1976
246
H.P.Mai
247
"Semiotiqueintertextuelle: L'interpretant." Revue d'Esthhique 1-2, 128-150.-Polish tr.: "Semiotyka intertekstualna: interpretant." Pamietnik Literacki 79, 1988,
297-314.
"La syllepse intertextuelle." Poetique 10/40,496-501.
1979
1979/80
"Syllepsis." Criticallnquiry 6, 625-638.
1983
"Semanalyse de l'intertexte (Reponse aUri Eisenzweig). " Texte 2, 171-175.
"The Interpretant in Literary Semiotics." American Journal of Semiotics 3/4, 41-55.
1985
Rodriguez, Luz.
1987
"Intertextuele referentie: Een semiotiek van de mogelijkheid." Spiegel der Letteren
29/1-2, 52-60.
Rommetveit, Ragnar
"On Literacy and the Myth of Literal Meaning." In Roger Slj, ed. The Written
1988
World: Studies in Literate Thought and Action. Berlin: Springer, 13-40.
Roventa, Daniela
1981
"Intratextuel-intertextuel dans une lecture pragmatique du texte litteraire." Degres
9/28, gl-g6.
Roventa-Frumu~ani, Daniela
"Intertextualite e(s)t interaction." Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 30, 23-30.
1985
1986
"A Pragmatic Reading of Literary Texts." Cahiers de Linguistique Theorique &
Appliquee 23, 41-47.
Rulewicz, Wanda
1987
"Intertextuality, Competence, Reader." Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 34, 229-241.
Ruprecht, Hans-George
1981
"Du formant intertextuel: Remarques sur un objet ethnosemiotique." Actes Semiotiques 3/21,5-27.
1983
"Intertextualite." Texte 2,13-22.
"Intertextualite." In Algirdas Julien Greimas & Joseph Courtes, Semiotique: Dic1986
tionnaire raisonne de La theorie du langage. Vol. 2. Paris: Hachette, 119-122.
Rusinko, Elaine
1979
"Intertextuality: The Soviet Approach to Sub text. " Dispositio 4, 213-235.
Sabry, Randa
"Quand le texte parle de son paratexte." Pohique 18/69, 83-99.
1987
Schaar, Claes
"Linear Sequence, Spatial Structure, Complex Sign, and Vertical Context System."
1978
Poetics 7, 377-388.
Schabert, Ina
1983
"Interauktorialitt." Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und
Geistesgeschichte 57, 679-701.
Schendel, Michel van
1986/87
"L'ideologeme est un quasi-argument." Texte 5/6, 21-132.
Schmeling, Manfred
"Textuelle Fremdbestimmung und literarischer Vergleich." Neohelicon 12,231-239.
1985
Schmid, Wolf & Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds.
1983
Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualitt. Wien: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.
Schmitz, P. F.
"Intertextualiteit door signalen en door symptomen." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2,
1987
25-32.
Schoeck, Richard J.
1984
Intertextuality and Renaissance Texts. Bamberg: H. Kaiser.
Schulte-Middelich, Bernd
"Funktionen intertextueller Textkonstitution. " In Broich & Pfister, eds., 197-242.
1985
1979
248
H.P.Mai
Schwanitz, Dietrich
1983
"Intertextualitt und quivalenzfunktionalismus: Vorschlge zu einer vergleichenden Analytik von Geschichten." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 27-51.
Segre, Ces are
1982
"Intertestuale/interdiscorsivo: Appunti per una fenomenologia delle fonti. " In Constanzo Di Girolamo & Ivano Paccagnella, eds. La parola ritrovata: Fonti e analisi
letteraria. Palermo: Sellerio, 15-28. - Rpt. as: "Intertestualita e interdiscorsivita nel
romanzo e nella poesia." In Segre. Teatro e romanzo. Torino: G. Einaudi, 1984,
103-118.
Sollers, Philippe
1968
"Niveaux semantiques d'un texte moderne (expose)." In Tel Quel, ed. Theorie d'Ensemble. Paris: Seuil, 318-325. - German tr.: "Semantische Ebenen eines modernen
Textes." In Tel Quel, ed. Die Demaskierung der brgerlichen Kulturideologie: Marxismus-Psychoanalyse-Strukturalismus. Mnchen: Kindler, 1971, 155-162.
Somekh, Sasson
1986
"Intertextuality within a Literary System." Al-Karmil: Studies in Arabic Language
& Literature 7, 109-130 [in ArabicJ.
Somville, Leon
1987
"Intertextualite." In Maurice Delcroix & Fernand Hallyn, eds. Methodes du texte:
Introduction aux etudes litteraires. Paris: Duculot, 113-131.
Starobinski, J ean
1969
"Le texte dans le texte." Tel Que137, 4-33.
Steiner, Wendy
1985
"Intertextuality in Painting." American Journal of Semiotics 3/4, 57-67.
Stempel, Wolf-Dieter
1983
"Intertextualitt und Rezeption." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 85-109. - Polish tr.:
"Intertekstualnosc i recepcja." Pamietnik Literacki 79,1988,339-356.
Stierle, Karlheinz & Rainer Warning, eds.
1984
Das Gesprch. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Stierle, Karlheinz
1983
"Werk und Intertextualitt." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 7-26. - Rpt. in Stierle &
Warning, eds., 1397150.
Still, Judith & Michael Worton
1990
"Introduction." In'Michael Worton & Judith Still, eds. Intertextuality: Theories and
Practices. Manchester/New York: Manchester Up, 1-44.
Tallis, Raymond
1988
Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory. Basingstoke/London:
Macmillan.
Teodorescu, Anda
1985
"Intertextualitatea si alternantele realului." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 25-33.
Threadgold, Terry
1987
"Changing the Subject." In Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold, eds. Language Topics:
Essays in Honourof Michael Halliday. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins, 549-597.
1988
"What Did Milton Say Belial Said and Why Don't the Critics Believe Hirn?" In
James D. Benson & Michael]. Cummings & William S. Greaves, eds. Linguistics in a
Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 331-392.
Turk, Horst
"Intertextualitt als Fall der bersetzung." Poetica 19, 261-277.
1987
Tyler, StephenA.
1983
"Ethnography, Intertextuality, and the End of Description." AmericanJournal of
Semiotics 3/4,83-98.
Van Boheemen, Christel
1981
"Intertextualiteit: Een inleiding." Forum der Letteren 22, 242-249.
249
VanPeer, W.
1987
"Intertextualiteit: Traditie en kritiek." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2,16-24.
Vasiliu, E.
1985
"Intertextualitate: Citeva disocieri necesare." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 3-9.
Verdaasdonk, Hugo
1973
"Het konsept 'intertekstualiteit'." Literair Lustrum 2: Een overzichtyan vijf jaar
Nederlandse literatuur 1966-1971. Ed. Kees Fens et al. Amsterdam: AtheneumPolak & Van Gennep, 344-365.
Ver6n, Eliseo
1973
"Pour une semiologie des operations translinguistiques." VS: Quaderni di studi
semiotici 4,81-100.
Vultur, Smaranda
1978
"Text si intertext: Posibilitati de abordare si delimitari." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 29; 347-357.
1981
"Situer l'intertextualite." Cahiers Roumains d'Etudes Litteraires 8/3, 32-36.
1983
"A Type of Intertextuality: The Quotation in the Critical Discourse." Revue
Roumaine de Linguistique 28, 396-403.
1984
"A propos des configurations intertextuelles." Cahiers Roumains d' Etudes Litteraires 11/4, 72-78.
1985
"Intertextualitatea si specificitatea discursului poetic." Limba Romana 34, 454-460.
1985
"Intertextualitatea ca principiu de functionare a textului literar." Studii si Cercetari
Lingvistice 36, 52-63.
1986
"La place de l'intertextualite dans les theories de la reception du texte litteraire. "
Cahiers Roumains d'Etudes Litteraires 13/3, 103-109.
Wilske, Ludwig & Wolf-Dieter Krause
1987
"Intertextualitt als allgemeine und spezielle Texteigenschaft. " Wissenschaftliche
Zeitschrift der Pdagogischen Hochschule Karl Liebknecht 31,890-895.
Zander, Horst
1985
"Intertextualitt und Medienwechsel. In Broich & Pfister, eds., 178-196.
Zepp, Evelyn H.
1982
"The Criticism of Julia Kristeva: A New Mode of Critical Thought." Romanic Review 73, 80-97.
Zima,Peter
1978
"Der Text als Intertext." Kritik der Literatursoziologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
103-112.
1980
"Intertextualitt." Textsoziologie: Eine kritische Einfhrung. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 81-86.
Zumthor, Paul
1976
"Le carrefour des rhetoriqueurs: Intertextualite et rhetorique." Poetique 7/27,
317-337.
1981
"Intertextualite etmouvance." Litterature no. 41, 8-16.
1983
"L'intertexte performanciel." Texte 2, 49-59.
Zurbrugg, Nicholas
1984
"Borroughs, Barthes, and the Limits of Intertextuality." Review of Contemporary
Fiction 4,86-107.
Zurowski, Maciej
1981
"L'intertextualite, ses antecedents et ses perspectives." In J 6zef Heistein, ed. Etudes
fran~aises en Europe non francophone: Actes du seminaire europeen de I'AUPELF
Wroclaw - Cracovie - Varsovie 15-23 septembre 1979. Warsaw/Wroclaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 173-175.
1983
"L'intertextualite, ses antecedents et ses perspectives." Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny
30, 111-125.
250
H. P. Mai
Name Index
Abrams, M. H. 136,159
Ackroyd, Peter 226-227, 234
Adams, Ansel 229
Adriaens, Mark 38,41,52
Aeschylus 230
Albert [Albertus Magnus] 188
Alciati, Andrea 187
Allen, Don Cameron 195,204
Allen, Woody 26
Almeida, Ivan 83, 95, 237
Althusser, Louis 37,38
Altman, Charles F. 30,52,237
Ambrose (ofMilan) 188
Amrine, Fredrick 60,74
Anacreon 168
Anderegg, Johannes 156,159
Anderson, John R. 73,74
Angenot,Marc 31,52,62,74,237
Apollinaire, Guillaume 232
Ariost [Ariosto, Ludovico] 110
Aristophanes 167
Aristotle 32,213,215,230
Arndt, Ernst Moritz 172
Arrive, Michel 45, 52, 238
Augustine [Augustinus, Aurelius] 72,188
Ausonius, Decimus Magnus 167, 168, 169, 174
Austen, Jane 103
Axhausen, Kte 69,74
Babloyantz, Agnessa 60, 74
Baetens,Jan 238
Baker, Sheridan 136, 161
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 3,10,27,33,34,70,147,
159,165,171,173,174,211,212,221,222
BaI, Mieke 79,81,95
Balzac, Honore de 112
Banville,John 233,234
Bar, Francis 67, 74
Barber, Bruce Alistair 229,234
Barkan,Leonard 181,190
Barnes,Julian 106,120
Barth, John 9,26,27, 113, 120,208-209,214,
215,216,221,222
Barthelme, Donald 214,218,219,222
Barthes, Roland 3, 6, 25, 26, 27, 30, 37, 38,
41-44,46,52,69,70,72,74,78,79,92,93,95,
146,148,160,194,196,201,202,204,213,
218,222,238
Barton,John 23
Barwise, J. 63
Baudelaire, Charles 218
Baudissin, Wolf Heinrich Graf von 21
Beal, Graham W. J. 233, 234
Beardsley, Aubrey 24
Beaton, Cecil 231
Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de 32,34,52,165,
175,238
Beckett, Samuel 18,115,217
Beethoven, Ludwig van 20, 70
Bejart, Maurice 20
Belasco, David 149, 156, 157
Bell, Robert F. 139, 160
Benet, William Rose 167, 175
Benjamin, Walter 225,235
Bennett, David 46,48, 52,238
Benoist, Jean-Marie 79,95
Ben-Porat, Ziva 135,136,137,138,139, 160,
238
Benveniste, Emile 85,95
Bergengruen, Werner 127, 128, 130, 133
Berger, D. A. 122, 125, 133
Berger,John 225,233,235
Bertalanffy, L. von 70
Bertrand de Born 217
Best, Otto F. 166, 175
Beugnot, Bernard 157, 160
Bilous, Daniel 238
Bjornson,Richard 238
Blnsdorf, Jrgen 238
Blake, William 227
Bloom,Harold 27,135,136,160,209,213,
222
Bloomfield, Morton W 17,27
Blumenberg, Hans 60,74,174
Bhm, Rudolf 122, 123, 125, 128, 133
Boheemen, Christel van 248
Boiardo, Matteo Maria 110
Boker, George H. 116
Boller, Paul F. 12,27
Bollinger, Ulrich
171
252
Name Index
Name Index
Catullus, C. Valerius 216,217
Cavalcanti, Guido 216,217
Cave, Terence 182,190
Caws, Mary Ann 239
Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de 102,107,113,
115,116,117,118,120,141
Champagne, Roland A. 239
Charney, Hanna 102, 121
Chatterton, Thomas 227
Chaucer, Geoffrey 72
Cheever,John 144,158
Chomsky, Noam 8,32,38,41
Christensen, Bente 239
Cicero, Marcus Tullius 7, 167
Cieslikowska, Teresa 239
Claes, Paul 239
Clark, Eva Lee 136,160
Claudius 170
Claudius, Matthias 172
Cleland, J ohn 105
Coffler, Gail H. 136, 160
Colie, Rosalie L. 190
Colombo, J ohn Robert 14
Compagnon, Antoine 15, 27
Conde, Claude 46, 53
Conklin,Jeff 49,53
Conte, Gian Biagio 136,160
Cooke, Ebenezer 9
Coombs, James H. 136,137,138,160
Cooper, James Fenimore 112
Corneille, Pierre 218
Corns, Thomas N. 49,53,239
Courtes,Joseph 71,75,85,96,241
Coward, Rosalind 37,53,214,222
Crane, Stephen 143, 158
Cross an, J ohn Dominic 86, 95
Crusius,Otto 166,175
Cuddon, J. A. 136, 160
Culler,Jonathan 12,27,101,120,239-240
Cunliffe, Marcus 222
Curtius, Ernst Robert 64, 74, 190
Cyprian 188
Dllenbach, Lucien 23,27,31,53,240
Dali, Salvador 69
Dante Alighieri 116, 123, 126, 181,218
Daudet, Alphonse 115
Davey, Frank 69
Davidson, Michael 33,53
Davis, Richard Harding 155
Defoe, Daniel 24, 113
De la Mare, Walter 109,120
Delepierre,Octave 167,169,170,175
Delorme, J. 240
253
254
Name Index
Name Index
Hambridge,Joan 241
Hand, Sein 241
Harland, Richard 37,38,54
Hartman, Geoffrey 36, 54, 241
Hartmann, Victor 20
Harty, E. R. 28,32, 54,241
Hassan, Ihab 46,54,207,209,223
Hatten, Robert S. 241
.
Hauff, Jrgen 35, 55
Haug, Wolfgang F. 219,223
Hausmann, Raoul 26
Heartfield, J ohn 26
Heath, Stephen 17,28,43
Hebel, UdoJ. 135,140,161,241
Heckscher, WS. 188
Heger, Klaus 69, 75
Heim, Michael 50, 55
Heine, Heinrich 24
Helm, Rudolf 168,175
Hemingway, Ernest 143,152,159
Hempfer, Klaus W 38,48,55,210,223,242
Henry, O. 155
Herget, Winfried 115,120
Herodotus 230
Hersey,John 105
Herzog, Reinhart 167,169,171,175
Hesiod 168
Hesse, Eva 216,223
Hewlett, Richard G. 124,134
Heyndels, Ralph 242
Hicks, Deborah 46, 59
Hieronymus 170-171,175,188
Hill, Christopher 195,196,198,199,204
Hirst, Graem 61,75
Hitchcock, Alfred 231
Hjelmslev, Louis 62,72
Hhler, Gertrud 139,161
Hoek, Leo H. 122,127,128,129,130,131,
134, 152, 153, 161
Hlderlin, Friedrich 104
Hogarth, William 105
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe 35, 48, 55
Holbein, Hans 182
Holland, Michael 242
Hollander,John 102,187,190
Holman, Hugh 136, 161
Homer 113,167,171,181,216,217,230
Hopper, Edward 231
Horace 10, 181
Horan, Chris 45-46, 55
Hosidius Geta 167
Houdebine, J ean-Louis 242
Houppermans, S. 242
Howells, William Dean 144, 159
255
256
Name Index
Name Index
257
258
Name Index
llhys,Jean 106,110,111,121
llicardou,Jean 246
llichardson,Samuel 103,104,105,106,108,
113
llicoeur,Paul 34,35,36,57,80,97
lliddel, Joseph N. 93,97
lliffaterre, Michael 10, 18,29,46,57,62,70,
76,138,139,140,163,193,194,197,200,205,
246-247
lliley, James Whitcomb 155
llinggren,fIeImer 79,97
llobbe-Grillet, Alain 20
lloberts, David 226, 236
llodi, Fritjof 136,140,163
llodriguez, Luz 247
llder, Petra 39, 57
llokeach, Milton 62, 76
llommetveit, llagnar 58,247
llosaeus, Alexander 171
llosler, Martha 230,233,236
lloth,Philip 113,118-119,121
llothe, Arnold 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129,
131,133,134,152,153,163
llothfield, Lawrence 46, 58
llovenla(-Frumuani), Daniela 29,247
lludat, Wolfgang E. fI. 142,163
llhm, Gerhard 22
llulewicz, Wanda 247
lluprecht, fIans-George 29,32,58, 62, 63, 69,
72,76-77,247
llushdie, Salman 226, 232, 236
,.
llusinko, Elaine 30,58,247
llussell, Charles 58
lluthven, K. K. 32,47,58
Sabry, llanda 247
Sadler, Lynn Veach 201,205
Salinger, Jerome D. 103,141,145,149,154,
159
Salle, David 231
Samuel, Irene 195, 196, 201, 205
San'al-Mulk, Ibn 69
Sandler,Irving 232-233
Sartre, J ean-Paul 60, 72, 77
Saussure, Ferdinand de 8, 32, 79, 83, 138, 163
Scaliger, Julius Caesar 64,167-168,170,176
Scarron,Paul 64,65,66,67,68,77
Schaar, Claes 136, 138, 139, 140, 163,247
Schabert,Ina 31,32,58,247
Schendel, Michel van 247
Schick, Ulla 213,224
Schiele, Egon 228
Schiffer, Stephen ll. 68, 77
Schiller, Friedrich 230
Name Index
Schlegel, August Wilhelm 21
Schlemmer,Oskar 220
Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte 32, 58
Schmeling, Manfred 70,77,247
Schmid, W. 167,176
Schmid, Wolf 32,58, 135, 137, 138, 140, 157,
163,224,247
Schmidt, Arno 15
Schmitz, P. F. 247
Schoeck, llichardJ. 32,58,182,184,186,191,
247
Schpp, Joseph C. 208,224
Schubert, Franz 220
Schulte-Middelich, Bernd 32,58, 156, 163,247
Schwanitz, Dietrich 105,248
Schweikle, Gnther 136, 163
Schweikle,Irmgard 136,163
Scott, Sir Walter 116
Scott-Craig, T. S. K. 195,201,205
Seamon, lloger 33,58
Searle, John ll. 138,152,163
Segermann, Krista 122, 125, 127, 133, 134
Segre, Cesare 62,70,77,248
Seidl, J ohann Gabriel 172
Selden,John 30,58
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus 192, 205, 220
Seung, T. K. 37,38,40,43,58
Shakespeare, William 12,20,21,22,23, 101,
103,105,107,113,114,115,116,125,133,
143,149,152,212,218
Shaw, George Bernard 10, 105, 106, 115, 125
Shawcross, John T. 203,205
Shelley, Percy Bysshe 133
Shepard,Sam 149,159
Shipley, Joseph T. 166,176
Shukman, Ann 33,58
Shweder, llichard A. 63, 75
Silesius, Angelus 71
Simon, fIans-Ulrich 137,150,157, 163
Sinclair, Upton 124
Sleigh, Sylvia 230
Smirnov, Igor P. 15,29,217,224
Smith, S. F. 125
Smolak, Kurt 171,176
Sollers, Philippe 37,248
Solomon-Godeau, Abigail 225,234,236
Somekh, Sasson 248
Somville, Leon 62,77,248
Sondheim, Moritz 127, 134
Spanos, William V. 229,236
Spee, Friedrich 71
Starobinski,Jean 248
Starosta, Stanley 72, 77
Statius, Publius Papinius 170
259
260
Name Index
Subject Index
accumulation (see enrichment, semantic)
actualization 6,21,137, 138, 140, 141, 142,
144,147,151,152,154,156,200
adages 16, 17, 182-183, 185-187
adaptation 23,105,127,166,172,210
aemulatio 117 (see also imitation)
aestheticism 43,221
aesthetics 19,43,47,62,218
alienation 16,35,48,212,232,233
allegore~s 5,78,171,226
allusion 4,15,31,36,66,67,78,104,135-158,
165,181,182,184,187,197,200,201,208,
210,211,220,233,234,237
- covert (see allusion, unmarked)
- cultural 148
- diegetic 137
- explicit (see allusion, marked)
- generic 148
- implicit (see allusion, unmarked)
- intertextual 141, 142
- localization of 145-147
- marked 12, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146
- onomastic 138, 142-143, 144, 145, 150,
151-152,153,155,156 (see also names)
- overt (see allusion, marked)
- paratextual 146
- pseudo-intertextual 141,142,147
- quotational 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150,
151, 152, 153, 156
- Scriptural 184
- sources of 148-149
- spatiality 148
- temporality 148
- textual 148
- titular 142,144,145,150,151,152-153
- toponymic 143
- unmarked 136,137,141,142,143,144
amalgamation 104,115
ambiguity 12,61,129,153,193,194,199,200,
202,203,204
ambivalence (see ambiguity)
analogy 34,60,71,104,106
annotation 49 .
antecedent 101,108,110,117 (see also source)
anti-intertextual(ists) 3,4-5,18
anti-novel 24
appropriation 33,41,44,47,51,78,93,225,
229,232,233,234
archi-intertextualist 18
architecture 26, 187, 207
archive 26,47,50,52 (see also library; musee
imaginaire)
assimilation 11,44,69,146,194,222
association 8,46,51,72,84,111,138,140,141,
143, 151, 152 (see also connotation)
authenticity 50, 158, 186,212,219,221
author 5,15,16,17,25,26,31,34,35,43,45,
47,48,51,65,67,68,80,92,107,110,111,
112,113,128,133,144,145,148,151,192,
193-194,196,197,198,200,201,203,210,
212,213,230,234
authority 13,14,33,47,50,85,93,94,124,
133,174,198,210,211,212,221,225,230,
232
autonomy 6,16,22,31,34,48,50,174,209,
210,211,212,229
auto texte 31
avantgarde 3,27,36,37,48
bibliotheque generale 25, 62, 213
border (see boundary)
borrowing 67, 107, 108, 126, 129, 188
boundary 5,23,61,69,89,90,91,92,94,95,
102, 116,213
bricolage 220
burlesque 65,66,67,114
canon 19,25,78,92,133,165,182,186,193,
211,212,218,228,229,231,234
capitalism 47,48,129-130,133,193,194,225,
231,234
caricature 173
carnival 208,211,212,213,221
catastrophe, semantic 65,67,68,70
cento 4,23,126,165-174
chambres d'echos 25,26,213,215
chaos (see catastrophe, semantic)
character 101-119,155
Ciceronianism 7
cinema 24,26,62,129,149,231,234
262
Subject Index
Subject Index
-
communicative 13
cultural 19
evaluative 17
modernist 216
poetic/literary 64,67,126, 127, 128, 129,
141,145,146,148,153,157,181,226,229,
232
- scientific 40-41
conversion (see transformation)
cotext 130, 150, 152, 154, 157
cotextualization 141,145,154-156,157,158
counter-blazon 24
creativity 17,48,88,89, 194, 196,208,212,
228
critic 65,67,68,215
criticism
- biblical 78-95
- literary 3-5, 32, 33-38, 40, 42, 44-48, 50-52,
71,72,133,139,165,192-194,214-215
- philological 36,151
- textual 37
cross section (see intersection)
cybernetics 48, 73
database 16,49,51
decentering 213
decoding 6,16,141,186,192,193,210
deconstructionl deconstructive 3-4,31,34,
41,42,48,51,60,79,81,82,89,92,93,94,
194,212,214,215,216,217,218,221,226,
228,229,230,234,237
deferral 31,91,93
delight (see pleasure)
demarcation 45,89,125 (see also markers)
denotation 37,138,140
derivation 7,9,10,22
dialectic 40,42, 128
dialogism/dialogue 10,15,23,26,33,34,139,
156,157,158,165,187,193,198,209,211,
212,213,218,220,221
differance 31,69,78,82,89,90,94
difference 17,31,61,64,82,89,90,91,92,93,
94,225,226
digest 22, 185
discontinuity 25,26, 70, 89,93, 94
dis integration 6, 16,216
disjunction 126
dispersion 94,216
displacement 17,40,43,68,93
disruption 16,25,48,138
dissemination 31,91,92,94
double 125,192,212,232,234
dream work 39,40
duplicate 108, 109 (see also double)
echoes 31,184,189,196,198,201,203,207,
213,216,227,228,231,232 (see also chambres d'echos)
ecriture 27,37,69,90,93,172,174,192,204,
211
Einzeltextreferenz 166 (see also referent)
elitism 3,4,218,233
embedding 11,23,85,92,123,141,155
encoding 10,15,186,194
encyclopaedia 65,187,226
enonce 201,212
enrichment, semantic 5, 16,44,45,47,48, 127,
130, 138, 139, 142, 152
entropy 68, 72, 73
epistemology 42,43,47,62,63,65,67,71,79,
82
epitext 22
evocation 103,104,135,137-138,139,140,
141,142,143,144,145,147,150,152,155,
156,157,158,165,184,202
exegesis 13,46,78,79,80,81,82,89,90,92,
93,200 (see also interpretation)
explication de texte 37
extratextual 89, 90, 91
fabric (see texture )
feminism 81,194,228,230-231
fiction(ality) 116,117,118,119,130,195,202,
211, 216, 227 (see also world, fictional)
figure (see character)
- onloan 102,107,108
- re-used 107-114
film (see cinema)
fissure 48
Fliegleichgewicht 70
footnotes 22,49,146,216
formalism 35,80,81,92
formulas 12, 118, 128, 129
Freudianism (see psychoanalysis)
game 43,73,126,181,189,208
genius 193,212,227,231
geno-text 41
genre 21,24,25 (see also intergenericity)
gloss 12,22, 196, 198
grammar 8,31
- generative (transformational) 9,19,41,127
- intertextual 8
- prescriptive 7
- secondary 9
harmonization . 25,44,48,201
hermeneutics 17,30,34-36,39,40,42,47,48,
79,80,93-94,156,194,201
263
heterotopia 61
heuristic 30,46,63,68,69, 153
hierarchy, semantic 21,32,64,69, 123, 125,
126,129,130,133,218
history 25,26,40,42,43,44,47,64,65, 79, 82,
90,91,92,93,94,122,139,140,181,201,202,
207,208,209,211,214,217,219,220,226,
227,228,229
- economic 233
- literary 15, 18,64,69,70,93,118,128,129,
150,158,193,208,209,210,232
- of art/representation 225,226,230,231,
232,233,234
- social 230, 232, 233
hypertext (computer) 30,49-51,52
hypertext (Genette) 49,69,202
hypo-text 69, 192,202
identity 6,9,17,18,63,94, 103, 104, 106, 107,
108,109,110,111,112,113,116,119,130,
150, 174,213,216,230 (see also similarity)
ideology 13,14,34,36,37,39,41,45,48,69,
79,81,101,107,130,133,139,193-194,195,
208,211,212,213,218,221,225,229,230
imitationlimitatio auctorum (veterum) 5, 19,
32-33,102,110,115,116,117,126,127,169,
171,173,174,181,192,194,198,200,201,
202,210
independence (see autonomy)
individuality 35,48, 111, 128, 193, 194,209,
212,226
infiltration (see subversion)
influence 11,14,27,31,36,149,181,186,189,
209 (see also source)
information 14,16,49,50,51,52,72,73
innovation 47,126,130,133,174,193,215,
217,226
inscription 69,165,192,210,228,229,232,
233,234
instability 67,68,69,70,73,213
institution(s), culturallsocial 13,25,37,67,70,
81,181,229,234
integrity 5, 194 (see also authenticity)
intention(ality) 6, 13, 15, 16,30,34,45,68,81,
85,90,93,94,111,113,114,150,193,208,
210,211,218
I nterauktorialitt 31
intercontextuality 30
interdisciplinarity 63,79,182
interdiscursivite 31, 70, 73
interference 8, 11, 12
interfictionality 119
interfigurality 101-119
intergenericity 21,24,25
264
Subject Index
intermediality 20
internymic 102,103,104,105,106,111,112,
114,115,119
interplay 17,93,212
inter-poem 209
interpretant 83-86,87-89,93
interpretation 16,35,36,43,45,49,51,68,72,
78,79,80,81,82,90,91,92,94,117,124,
135-158,194,203,210
inter-reading 209
intersection 33,40,44,110,114,118,139,203,
231
intersemanticity 135
inter-semioticity 30
intertext (definition) 5-8, 194
intertextual
- communication 8
- deviation 9
- erosion 140,148,152,153
- formant 72
- frame(work) 8,61, 128, 149-150
- functive 72
- identity 9
- meaning 200
- operations 10
- semiotics 3,6-8,20,26
- space 157,192,200-201,204,213
- weaving/web 61,78,93, 145, 182, 183, 184,
185,186,187,196
intertextualist 3,4,5,46,47,48,50,63,70,184
(see also intertextuality, applied)
intertextuality
- affirmative 19
- applied 44-46, 49
- cross-art (see intertextuality, inter-art)
- decreasing 6
- definition of 5,6,31-32,40,45,51,182,
193,194,201,209,210-211,212
- diachronic 25-26
- erudite 216
- etymology of 32,62,183
- fields of 62
- formal 188
- generalizing (see intertextuality, structural)
- generic 21,24 (see also intergenericity)
- holistic 19
- horizontal(syntagmatic) 23-24,141
- hybrid 21,25
- increasing 6
- intended 6
- inter-art 181,182,188
- intercultural 26
- intratextual 118, 119
- inverted 19, 23, 25
Subject Index
-
linguistic 188
literary 182
material (particularizing) 7,8,24,25
material-structural (particularizing-generalizing) 7
- medial 20 (see also intermediality)
- multiple 25
- negated/negative 6,19,23
- non-verbal 8,20,24,26
- paradigmatic (see intertextuality, vertical)
- particularizing (see intertextuality, material)
:- pseudo- 26,142
- relativistic 19
- restricted 31,32
- segmental 9, 19
- structural (generalizing) 7,21,24,25
- structuralist 210-211
- synchronic 25
- syntagmatic (see intertextuality, horizontal)
- verbal 8,20,24,26
- vertical (paradigmatic) 23,25,138,141,
158
intertextualization 23,71, 72, 73
intertitularity 122
intratextual 5,9,12,30,34,117,118,119,138,
154,156,157
inversion 19,24,25,61,64,65,115, 143, 145,
233
irony 12,25,26,31,66,105,143,150,151,
155,157,225,226,228,229,230,232,233,
234
isotopy 10, 25, 63, 65
langue 8
library 91,213 (see also archive)
linguistics 6,19,32,33,36,38,41,42,45,48,
80,8i
literature (examples discussed) 9-26,61-62,
64-66,69,82-89,101-119,141-158,168-174,
183-189,194-204,215,216-217,218-219,
226-228,230,232
logic 38,43,45,60,63,85
logocentrism 81
markers 5,8,11-12,15,45,85,115,123,126,
127,128,131,136,137,138,141,142,146,
198,210,212
- explicit 12
- graphemic 10,12,127,129,141,142,143,
144
- implicit 12
- intratextual 12
- phonemic 12, 127, 143,151
- pseudo- 12
265
pamtmgs 24,62,144,227,228,230-231,
232-233
palimpsest 69,200,209
paraphrase 21,22,169,210
paratext 22,106,146,154,203
parody 4,17,19,24,25,26,32,64,65,104,
105,107,108,109,114,126,165,167,168,
172,173,174,193,208,210,221,225-234,
237
parole 8,146, 165
pastiche 172,225,226,228, 229, 234
perception, modes/stages of 13,15-17,51,
124, 137, 193
pedormance 8
peritext 22
permutation 23,40,42,212 (see also transformation)
persiflage 172
pheno-text 41
philosophy 3,4,37,38,39,81,90,94
photography 26,228,229,231,233,234
plagiarism 122, 129, 172,209,227
play 19,31,39,41,42,43,50,89,92,93,94,
119,141,145,189,208,209,214,216,225,
226,229,233,234 (see also interplay)
pleasure 14,25,31,72,221
plurality 14,211,213
politics, cultural 31,34,35,36,37,39,41,43,
44,47,51,81,90,211,212,225-234 (see also
names 102-107,108,110,111,112,113,114,
ideology)
115,119,128,131,133,136,138,142,143,
poly-isotopy 10,25
144, 145, 148, 150, 151-152, 153
polyphony 10,70,211
negentropy (see entropy)
polysemy 150,151
Neoclassicism 210
popular culture 149,207,208,218,219,233,
neo-conservatism 226,228 (see also conserva234
tism)
positivism 19,40,47, 79, 80, 90
network 33,49,50,63,67,69,90,92,101,119, postmodernism 4,19,26,48,70,80,81,117,
118,142,186,207-210,214-222,225-234,
133,155,209,210 (see also intertexual web)
noise 65,201,213,218 (see also cybernetics)
237
normativity 13,14,18-19,64,66,81,173,174, poststructuralism 3,4,31,32,33,34,35,36,
218
37,38,43,44,45,48,50,51,62,69,72,80,81,
135, 138, 210, 211, 214,215,216,217, 237 (see
ontology 44,81,82,107,109,210
also deconstruction)
openness, semantic 15, 140, 142, 145, 153, 156 post-text 17,22,23
orality 16,128
practice, semiotic/textual 30,31,33,37,39,40,
organicism 9,45,187
41,42,43,44,46,48,49,61,65,67,69,78,79,
organism 60, 70, 71
81,82,85,89,94,95,181,186,187,192,210,
origin(ality) 11,17,19,84,91,93,105,107,
215,229,231,232
108,109,111,194,208,209,217,219,225,
pragmatics 6, 8 (see also quotation, pragmatics
228,234
01)
otherness 79,90
praxis (see practice, semioticltextual)
overcoding 61~ 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128,
presupposition 5,6,12, 18,64,65,71,81,82,
129,133
90,91,140,141,148,150,153,156,158,197,
ownership (see property)
202,210,216
266
Subject Index
8,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,19,20,22,
109, 110,111,112,
113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 138, 150, 172, 173,
174,192,197,198,202,210,211,217,218,
219,220,221
process, semiotic 17,19,23,37,39,61,63,65,
67,68,70,71,73,78,82,83,84,87,88,91,92,
93,94,95,137,138,140,181,182,186,226,
230 (see also semiosis)
production 6, 39,40,42, 65,226
productivity, semantic 37,40,42,43,69,71,
212
property 31,51,65,67,68,111,129,193,225,
234
proverb 123,143, 152, 185
psychoanalysis 3,37,38,39,41,42,44,46,80,
81,90
pre-text
23,25,45,103,106,10~
4,7,8-17,18,19,23,26,27,31,64,
66,78,86,93,103,104,122,123,124,125,
126, 127, 128, 129, 136, 137, 139, 142, 143,
144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 152, 157, 165, 168,
172,173,174,182,184,186,187,188,198,
200,208,210,211,212,216,217,220,225,
226,228,233,237 (see also allusion)
argumentative 14
authoritative 13, 14
competence 12
covert 12
cryptic 137, 152
definition of 8-9, 10
erudite 13-14,18
faked (see quotation, pseudo-)
functions of 13-15
gramm ar of 8-12, 18
marked (see allusion, marked)
ornamental 13, 14
overt 12
perceptions of 15-17
poetic 13,14-15
pragmatics of 12-17
pseudo- 12, 127
quoted 217
thresholds 16
unmarked (see allusion, unmarked)
quotation
- verbal 8
- within-a-quotation
Subject Index
213,216,226,229
- ideal 18,92
- implied 145,148,150,153,156
- informed 15,18,140,141, 156
- literaryfigureas 102,116-117,157
reader-oriented criticism (see reception theory)
reading (see reception; inter-reading)
- close 35,46,80,165
reality 8,15,18,26,35,90,94,116,118,141,
142,157,194,207,208,214,219,221,227
realityeffect 148, 157 (see also verisimilitude)
reception 6,10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 31, 42, 68,
92,140,148,155,188,192,193,202,204,213
reception theory 44,80,156.
recipient (see reader)
recollection (see memory)
recycling 113,208,209,218
reduction(ism) 6,32,71,82,211,214
referent(s)/references 7,8,13,19,25,26,27,
31,32,38,49,50,61,62,85,90,92,102,103,
104,106,107,111,125,126,127,128,
135-158,165,172,184,186,188,192,196,
200,203,209,210,211,214,215,217,226
referentiality 6, 19,22,34,35, 73, 89, 90, 137,
138,144,197,214,219
regressus ad infinitum/infinite regress 214,226
relativity 19,42,47,211
reminiscence 186 (see also memory)
Renaissance 32,64,71,181-189,192-204,210
representation 42,62,63,68,94, 139, 147, 194,
225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,
234
resonances 188 (see also echoes)
revenant 107, 109 (see also figure on loan;
duplicate)
revolution 3,37,38,39,48,208,209,211,212,
217,233
reworking (see rewriting)
rewriting/rt?-ecriture 23,27,30,31,101,103,
106,110,188,200,226,230
rhetoric 10,19,31,45,64,78,80,87,106,126,
151,183
7,8,33-34,35,38-39,40-41,42,47,
63,70,71,94
scriptible 69, 194,204
15
self 34, 119, 188,213,215 (see also subject;
individuality)
reader 5,10,12,13,15,22,23,24,26,31,34,
self-contained 6,19,34,43,209,212,213 (see
35,36,41,43,44,47,48,51,62,78,80,81,82,
also autonomy)
85,86,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,105,106,108, semiosis 7, 8, 44, 61, 63, 67, 82, 83, 84, 88, 94,
111,112,117,123,124,128,130,133,140,
214 (see also process, semiotic)
141,143,144,146,150,152,153,187,192,
semiotics 3,4,6-7,18,20,31,32,36,38,39,
193,194,196,197,198,200,201,204,210,
41i42,43, 63, 65, 70, 71, 79, 81,82,87
science
267
- cultural 40,42,44,212
textuality 6,19,31,36,37,38,40,50,60,62,
sender 12, 13, 18
90,92,93,94,165,215,226
textualization 31,36,214
sequel 110, 111, 112, 113 (see also serialization)
texture 24,51,61,63,90,93,183,189,213,
228 (see also intertextual weaving/web)
serialization 22,23-24,106, 112, 113, 128, 129
theatre 23,24,62, 129, 149,220-221
sign 6,7,18,20,21,23,25,26,36,78,83,84,
thesaurus 7,16,185
85,86,87,88,89,91,93,214
tissue (see texture )
signification/signifiance 42,65
tide 9,10,11,22,89,105,106,113,122-133,
similarity 32,64,103,104,106,109,143,195
136, 141, 142,144, 145, 146, 150, 151,
(see also identity)
152-153,231,232-233 (see also allusion, tituskepticism 26,35,36,47,63
society 40,43,47,48,130-131
lar)
sociology 4,42,44, 63
topicality 148,157
source 7,8,12,17,18,22,33,49,80,85,93,
topicalization 66
107,111,119,135-158,172,182,185,186,
topoi 146,184,185
187,219,220
topology 65, 66, 67, 68
source-influence studies 44,47
totality 6,211
speaker (see sender)
trace(s) 25,61,90,123,136,140,141,187,188,
speech 34,35,40,90,230
200,212
stereotype 112
tradition 4,5,31,32,35,37,38,41,61,67,80,
81,82,85,91,94,95,109,114,126,128,129,
structuralism 31,33,34,35,36,38,39,41,42,
133,145,165,181,201,203,207,208,209,
218,219,221,228,229,230,232,233
traditionalists 3,4,25, 192
trajectory 71,73,82,83,85,86,88,89,93,95
transcoding 11,61,66,231,232
transformation 9-10,17,19-25,40,41,64,80,
209,211,212,213,221
81,91,103, 104, 105,126,127,150,151,15~
sub-text 12,185, 186
194,212,220 (see also permutation)
subversion 31,32-33,37,38,40,41,48,65,81,
108,211,212,213,221,226,229,230,232,
transgression 230, 234
233,234
trans-individual 18
translatability 84, 85, 88, 89,92, 194
superimposition 25,50,115,217
translation 4, 11,20-21,24,69, 105, 122, 185,
supplement 15,22,93,110
210,217
syllepsis 139,200
syntactics 8
trans-linguistic 34,40
Systemreferenz 166
transposition 19,23,40,44 (see also transformation)
target text 8,9,49,136,137,139
transstylization 21
transtextual(ity) 7,61,68,69,70,71,135,192
taxonomy 4,6,32,39,41,42,45,47,52,130,
135,146,148,149,194,211
travesty 4,19,23,24,25,64,65,67,172,173,
teleology 39,91
.
208,210,218
text (models) 5-6,17,30,31,34-35,36,37,40, truth 31,39,50,63,68,79,90,94,95,202,219,
42,45,47,50,60,79,80,81,82,84,86,88,89,
226,227
90,91,92,93,94,95,193,194,197,202,208, typology 13, 127
- biblical 5, 78, 195, 201
209,210,211,212,213,214,217,237
- absolute 34
- as activity 36
uncertainty 64, 71, 227
- communal 213
undecidability 200
- etymology of 183
uniqueness 17,193,225,226
- infinite 31
unity 16,47,48,84,85,89,210,211,212
- pO'itmodernist 215
universe of texts 17,65,140,189,214
- social 40
utopia 43
texte general 40, 135, 148,214 (see also context)
validity 13,14,19,42,43,67,202,203
62,69,70,72,79,80,81,146,210,211
structure
- deep 9,10,41,60,103
- surface 9,41,60,103,127,142,144
subject 35,43,84,85,88,92,95,140,193,200,
-------
------------------------------------------------..........
268
Subject Index
16,45,47,48,62,89,93, 102,
118,193,
194,201,213 (see also text)
world
- fictional 15,35,68,104,107,108,110,114,
117,118,142,143,146,147,157,158
- possible 65
103,106,10~112,113,114,116,
Literary Discourse
Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological
Approaches
Edited by LdszlO Haldsz
Large-octavo. VI, 242 pages, 12 tables, 6 figures.
1987. B~und DM 112,- ISBN 3 11 010685 X (Vo)ume 11)
Prioca
IlI'C
subjcct
10
change