@ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANS I to ensure permanence and durability .

Library 0/ Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Intertextuality / edited by Heinrich F. Plett. (Research in text theory = Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie, ISSN 0179-4167; v. 15)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-89925-464-0 (U.S.: alk. paper) 1. Intertextuality. 2. Discourse analysis. 1. Plett, Heinrich F.

11. Series. PN98.I58157 1991 401'.41--dc20 91-28154

CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Intertextuality / ed. by Heinrich F. Plett. - Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1991

(Research in text theory; Vol. 15) ISBN 3-11-011637-5

NE: Plett, Heinrich F. [Hrsg.]; GT

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: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin

r

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. v

I. Fundamentals of Intertextuality

Heinrich F. Plett Intertextualities .

Hans-Peter Mai

3

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

11. Structures of Intertextuality

Wolfgang G. Müller Interfigurality. A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures. 101

Wolfgang Karrer Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

UdoJ. Hebel Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Theodor Verweyen and Gunther Witting The Cento. A Form of Intertextuality from Montage to Parody . 165

111. Historical Aspects of Intertextuality

Richard J. Schoeck 'In loco intertexantur'. Erasmus as Master of Intertextuality ........ 181

DerekN. C. Wood Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space. Intertextuality in Milton's Samson Agonistes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

VIII Table of Contents

Manfred Pfister How Postmodern is Intertextuality?

Linda Hutcheon The Politics of Postmodern Parody ,

Hans-Peter Mai Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography ,

Name Index,

Subject Index

207

225

, 237

,.251

, 261

I. Fundamentals of Intertextuality

HEINRICH F. PLETT

Intertextualities

1. Approaches to Intertextuality

inter-text. Using and repeating my own and others' earlier texts. Pulling the old poems thru the new, making the old lines a thread thru the eye of the words I am sewing. Sound and sense. The eeriness. Erin Moure, "the Acts", Furious (Toronto: Anansi, 1988)

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-

4 H. F. Plett

structionists, or postmodernists their basic aim is identical: to dislodge academic teaching from its traditional moorings. But the overthrow of the old orthodoxy, paradoxically not without a logic of its own, has only led to the establishment of a r:ew one. U niversities, publishing houses, and prestigious periodicals provide a wlde forum for the progressive approach. Yet the intimate knowledge of this intertextual discourse is limited to relatively few elitist circles. Presumably this is due to its basically philosophical orientation, but esoteric terminology also plays a role. This 'school' has never developed a comprehensible and teachable method of textual analysis. Its publications are marked by a strangely abstract quality, at a decided remove from reality. Such qualities not only impede their understandability but also surround their critical enterprise with an aura of mys­tery and exclusiveness.

The traditionalists belong almost exclusively to the group of conventional literary scholars. They are not linguists or semioticians, let alone philosophers or sociologists. Alerted by the public re action to the work of poststructuralists and deconstructionists, these scholars asked themselves - after aperiod of cau­tious hesitation - whether the insights of the intertextuality debate could be applied profitably to their own concerns. Depending on their critical emphasis, their answers differ. Analytically inclined researchers have rediscovered quota­tion, allusion, and cento as intertextual forms. Genre theorists point out the ~ntertextuality of parody, travesty, and collage. Translation and media special-1StS hold that the new approach can be of advantage to their respective fields of interest, too. Those scholars who are seriously concerned with theoretical ad­vances in their discipline use 'intertextuality' as a general term to improve their methodological and terminological instruments. Thus they have succeeded, at least pardy, in making the new approach more applicable. Yet the pitfalls of such an endeavour are easy to see. Systematic interest easily leads to narrow thinking, en:phasis on termir:ology to batteries of scholastic nomenclatures, largely de­vOld of content. ThlS obstructs the dynamism of intertextual sign processes. It is replaced by a static phenomenological accountancy. It is even worse when scholars use the term 'intertextuality' without having critically examined the concept, only in order to appear up-to-date. 'Intertextuality' as a vogue word -that is the negative side of the coin. ..

1.1.2. Anti-Intertextualists

Consequendy, a third group emerges: the opposition to the new approach. Their basically negative attitude expresses itself in two different strategies of argumentation. The progressive, speculative on es are simply not understood; they are accused of subjectivity and irrationality and an utter lack of scientific­ity. Yet even stronger is the opposition tothe traditionalist, pragmatic variant. Anti-intertextualists do not tire of emphasizing that they themselves have worked intertextually all along. They hold that every branch of serious literary scholarship, especially comparative studies, which appear to be particularly weIl

Intertextualities 5

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 twofüld coherence makes for the richness and complexity of the intertext, but also for its problematical status.

6 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).

As far as the intertext only exists in the actual communicative process - as a permanently oscillating indeterminabile - definite propositions ab out it cannot be made. It appears as part of a pragmatics which recognizes only the individual communicative act.

This very attitude, though, implies a distinct reduction of the intertext, which cannot have been intended by its original proponents. For the intertext lends itself to more approaches than a pragmatics which relies on singular instances of reception. If one considers it as sign - analogous to those procedures which text linguists employ to constitute their object - the intertext can be analyzed in a threefold semiotic perspective (Morris 1938): syntactically, as based on relations between texts; pragmatically, as the relation between sender/receiver and inter­text; and semantically, with respect to the referentiality of the intertext. Not a

Intertextualities 7

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:

(1) material (particularizing) intertextuality - i.e. repetition of signs, (2) structural (generalizing) intertextuality - i.e. repetition of rules, (3) material-structural (particularizing-generalizing) intertextuality - i.e. repe-

tition of signs and rules in two or more texts.

Mostly, critics conceptualize intertextuality according to (1). The model case for the transport of signs from one text to another is the quotation. Yet transtextual factors are not only the code signs but also the code rules. The latter ones are the precondition for the constitution of classes and sub-classes of texts. Signs with­out rules have no structure, rules without signs remain abstract. Therefore the third type of intertextuality is a very common occurrence, even if it is often ignored.

One of many illustrative examples of the three types of intertextuality is the elocutionary mode of Ciceronianism. The material aspect of this intertextuality is based on the lexicon of Cicero's complete works, regardless of wh ether it exists in primary form (the sources themselves) or as secondary derivations (dic­tionaries, thesauri, computer-generated concordances). The structural intertex­tuality of Ciceronianism is laid down in prescriptive stylistic gramm ars which contain meticulous rules for the composition of specific cola, lexematic colloca­tions, or clausulae. Yet it stands to reason that Cicero's inventory of material signs cannot be employed without regard to the respective stylistic grammar, and vice versa - the one depends on the other. That is why the mixed type of intertextuality is most common in Ciceronianism. The reference to texts is sup­plemented by a systematic reference and thus combines material and structural intertextuality.

1.3. Decisions

An intertextual theory bent on clarity and precision has to make methodological decisions which restrict the field of inquiry. A total semiosis of the intertext will remain an ideal objective and hence fall short of ever being put into practice. Thus, the exclusion of certain aspects will become necessary. One such exclu-

8 H. F. Plett

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. An Intertextual Case Study: the Quotation

The whole field of intertextual phenomena is so large that it is hard to choose one which lends itself to a syntactical and a pragmatical semiosis. By choosing the quotation we opt for an intertextual unit which is weIl known outside of schol­arly discourse, too. Priests are said to 'quote' passages from the Bible, but also composers from a symphony or painters from a picture. This indicates that the quotation represents a material kind of intertextuality. Not a structural rule, but a textual sign is being reproduce~ .. The material quality of this textual sign can be verbal as weIl as non-verbal. As can be seen from these few remarks the quota­tion is obviously made up of a rather specific cluster of features, which makes it an almost ideal object for an intertextual case study (Plett 1988).

2.1. The Grammar of Quotation

A grammar of quotation must take into account the following basic structural elements:

1. the quotation text (Tl), i.e. the text in which the quotation occurs (= target text);

2. the pre-text (T2), i.e. the text from which the quotation is taken (= source text);

3. the quotation proper (Q).

These elements require a detailed analysis, the guiding principles of which will be the quantity, quality, distribution, frequency, interference, and markers of quotations. The focus of the present investigation will be the verbal quotation occurring in verbal texts.

A quotation reveals several unmistakable characteristics which distinguish it as such. Its most obvious feature probably is intertextual repetition: apre-text is

j

Intertextualities 9

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.

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

I -

10 H. F. Piett

transformational variations of a given pre-text. The quotation text in question comprises the two lines

Died same, pro patria, non "duke" non et "decor",

which split up and rearrange Horace's well-known pre-text line

Duke et decorum est pro patria mari (carm. III.2.12).

Pound's lines illustrate the following intertextual operations: subtraction of the Latin verbal phrase "est [ ... ] mori" and its substitution by the English ve~b "died", subtraction of the terminal morpheme {-um} in "decorum", syntacuc permutation of the pre-text, addition and repetition .of the negation. "non" ~is­sing in Horace. These operations involve morphological and syntacuc text umts. An intersegmental graphemic addition is effected by the inverted commas. Re­viewing these rather complex transformational procedures, one realizes that their results - the quotations - may be designated by classical rhetorical nomenclatures, e.g. ellipsis, apocope, anastrophe. These rhetorical figures, then, do not indicate deviations within a text, but such as exist between texts Oenny

1976). An approach to the aspects of the intertextual deep structure of quotations

allows a comparison to rhetoric as well. The procedure of quoting resembles that of tropification, since the resulting text always lends itself to two interpreta­tions, namely a literal and a non-literal one. For this reason a quotation text can be regarded as a "dual sign" (Riffaterre 1980), since it admits of a proprie as well as of one or more improprie readings. The title of G. B. Shaw's Arms and the Man, for instance, refers in its literal (primary) sense directly to the events of the play, whereas its additional (secondary) sense derives from the fact that it is also a (translated) quotation of the initialline of Virgil's Aeneid. Thus, as a general rule, a quotation does not only include a single (isotopic) but two or more (poly­isotopic) levels of meaning that need to be interrelated by the recipient. This interrelationship, or, to use Bakhtin's term (1981), this "dialogue" extends well beyond the quoted element and covers its primary and secondary contexts ~s well. The more quotations are encoded in a poetical text, the more complex will be its intertextual deep structure, the more polyphonic the textual dialogue.

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

In tertextuali ties 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 C2 • 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 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.

2.2. The Pragmatics of Quotation

The remarks made in the first part have led the argument from grammar to

pragmatics. In the following exploration, pragmatics signifies the communica­tion of quotations. This includes manifold factors: sender, receiver, code, place,

In tertextuali ties 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.

2.2.1. Functional Modes

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.

2.2.1.1. The Authoritative Quotation

The authoritative quotation 9ccurs in communicative situations that impose on the sender an obligation to quote. Such communicative situations are closely attached to social institutions ; hence the quotation act assurnes a ritualized character. Illustrative examples are sacral arid legal proceedings, where priests and preachers, judges and lawyers endorse their reasoning by quotations from the Bible or the Law, respectively. Within their scope of validity, the authority claimed for such books admits of no doubts about their legitimacy. They main­tain the status of "holy books", whether it be the Bible or the Koran, the Corpus Iuris Civilis or the Civil Code, or, to venture into the field of political doctrine, the works of Marx, Engels and Mao Tse-tung (hence the term "Mao Bible"). Consequently, every subsequent reference text (e.g. Biblical commentaries) and every quotation taken from them is subject to a very narrow range of applica­tion, usuaHy one of an exegetical character. When a quotation in its claim to authority is not questioned at all, its function mayaiso be regarded as being "ideological" .

2.2.1.2. The Erudite Quotation

The erudite quotation mainly occurs in scientific texts that refer to other scien­tific texts. Like the theological quotation, it may be used to rely on the authority of incontestable knowledge. It differs, however, from the authoritative quota-

L

14 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".

2.2.1.3. The Ornamental Quotation

The ornamental quotation is even less subordinate to the normative forces of a communicative situation. Its spectrum of application is broad, for it includes numerous kinds of occasional discourse: letters, advertisements, ceremonial ad­dresses, obituaries, feuilletons, essays. If in these texts the ornamental quota­tions are obliterated altogether, the communicative act does not fail, since the basic information is preserved. This is due to the fact that ornamental quotations only serve as decorative embellishments added to the substance of a text. Hence the functional relation between text and quotation undergoes a decisive change: "Whereas in the case of the authoritative function the text serves the quotation, here the arrangement is the reverse" (Morawski 1970, 696). Being an aesthetic stimulus for the recipient's delight, the ornamental quotation shows the dosest affinity to the poetic quotation. In this respect it differs remarkably from the ideological sway of the authoritative quotation and the persuasive force of the erudite quotation.

2.2.1.4. The Poetic Quotation

As compared to the non-poetic types of quotation, the poetic quotation is characterized by its lack of an immediate practical purpose. Such a purpose can, however, be achieved, whena politician, a journalist or a salesman employs a poetic quotation in a non-poetic text. In this case the poetic quotation is de­poeticized, i.e. divested of its autotelic function and invested with the practical function of the respective quotation context. On the other hand, areversal of this procedure takes place when a non-poetic quotation is inserted in a poetic discourse. In that case the quotation is poeticized, i.e. released from the con­straints of an immediate practical usefulness and transferred to astate of "pur­posiveness without purpose" which causes "disinterested satisfaction"(Kant). Instances of this method are to be found in Laurence Sterne' s Tristram Shandy which contains quotations from treatises of medicine (Robert Burton) and philosophy aohn Locke) and even from a medieval formula of excommunica­tion (Bishop Ernulphus of Rochester). A modern development are the "found poems" of the Canadian author John Robert Colombo consisting entirely of quotations from non-literary texts such as newspaper reports, political speeches, dictionary entries etc. Both the poeticizing and the de-poeticizing of a quotation represent functional shifts that are conditioned by the ruling influence of the quotation context.

In tertextuali ties 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 quotatiön-within-a-quotation in a poetic text (Smirnov 1983) which denotes a fictional reality thrice removed from factual reality.

2.2.2. Perceptional Modes

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 miss es 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 in such a way that their twofold encoding is clearly made apparent. In his book Literary Quotation and Allusion E. E. Kellett (1969, 3) writes to this effect:

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.

2.2.2.1. Memory Depositories

For this reason both must be provided with a sufficient knowledge of literary history . This knowledge is stored in three types of memory depositories which mark three stages in the progress of civilization: 1. individual, 2. printed, and 3. electronic. Individual memory forms the basis of the tradition of oral litera­ture in preliterate societies. With the advent of the Gutenberg era individual memory was supplemented though not superseded by printed memory (written memory being just an intermediate stage in the development) (Compagnon

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 Büchmann's Ge­flügelte 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.

2.2.2.2. Stages of Perception

The reception of quotation texts does not proceed evenly but is retarded again and again by "quotation thresholds". Quotations constitute reception obstacles which impede the process of text communication. The seams between the quo­tation and its context do not only endanger the homogeneity of the literary structure,.but also the unity of perception. The perception is diverted by some­thing alien and unexpected which requires integration. Put in a simple scheme, the reception of quotations proceeds in three stages:

Stage 1: Disintegration of the perceptional continuum (quotation context) by the intrusion of an alien element (quotation);

Stage 2: Verification (and interpretation) of the alien element (quotation) by a digression into "text archaeology" (pre-text);

Stage 3: Reintegration of the alien element (quotation) and resumption of the perceptional continuum (quotation context) on an advanced (en­riched) level of awareness.

If the quotation remains unnoticed, this sequence of perceptional stages is not put into operation at all. If the quotation is not verified, stages 2 and 3 are not accomplished. If the quotation cannot be integrated in the text, stage 3 has to be dismissed. In the two latter cases the process of poetic perception comes to a halt in the stage of alienation. The disruption of the communicative process leaves the quotation text in a condition of fragmentation that no Ion ger deserves the Aristotelian epithet of "hen kai h610n". The unity of the work of art then ceases to exist. Such a failure may even not be due to the recipient's perceptional in­capacity but sometimes concurs with the author's artistic intentions.

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

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

If .intertexts are based on the principle of repetition, the following questions anse:

1. Which kind of repetition is sufficient to ensure "intertextual identity" (Mil-ler 1985)?

2. Who decides whether arepetition is an intertextual one? 3. To which evaluative conventions is an intertextual repetition subjected?

All these questions cannot be answered exhaustively here.

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.

3.2.1.1. Medial Substitution

Signs of different dass es are, for instance, verbal, visual, acoustic. As a conse­quence a substitutional paradigm of six sign transfers becomes possible:

(1) linguistic => visual signs example: Shakespeare's plays => Henry Fuseli's illustrations of them

(2) linguistic => acoustic signs example: Goethe's Faust => Franz Liszt's Eine Faust-Symphonie. In drei Charakterbildern (nach Goethe)

(3) visual => linguistic signs example: 77 pictures by Rene Magritte => Alain Robbe-Grillet's novel La belle captive

(4) visual => acoustic signs example: pictures by Victor Hartmann => Modest Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition '

(5) acoustic => linguistic signs example: Beethoven's Kreutzersonate => Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata

(6) acoustic => visual signs example: Maurice Ravel's Bolero => Maurice Bejart's ballet Bolero

As is suggested by the variety of the illustrations, each dass of signs allows of a division into subdasses, e.g. the visual dass can be divided into static and mov­ing, two-dimensional and three-dimensional, monochrome and polychrome pictures. At the same time the examples indicate how difficult it is to effect and to describe such sign transfers. Usually it is not single signifiers which are ex­changed for other signifiers but themes, motifs, scenes or even moods of a pre­text which take shape in a different medium. Thus it seems justifiable to call this kind of intertextuality intermediality. The respective problems can only be solved within the framework of a general semiotics and media science which would have to investigate the convertibility of signs and their accommodation in different media.

3.2.1.2. Linguistic Substitution

Verbal signs which can replace each other come from different subdasses. The result of such operations is 'translation' in a wider sense - for instance, from

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 (N olan 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.

3.2.1.3. Structural Substitution

Structural substitution takes place, when one set of rules is replaced by another. In literature the most conspicuous transformation of this kind is generic change. Proceeding from the dassical triad of lyric, epic, and drama, the following generic shifts can be disdosed:

(1) lyric => (a) epic, => (b) drama; (2) epic => (a) lyric, => (b) drama; (3) drama => (a) lyric, => (b) epic.

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 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 Rühm's Ophelia und die Wörter). 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

Intertextualities 23

common practice in theatrical performances where the drama text undergoes curtailments of lines and sentences, of monologues and dialogues, even of whole scenes. As a rule, the recipient is not asked here to enter into an intertextual dialogue between pre- and post-text but just to enjoy a good night out. One of a large number of examples is J ohn Barton and Peter Hall' s The Wars of the Roses, a considerably shortened version of the three parts of Henry VI and of Rich­ard 111. Although text segments of various size were omitted and transposed in it, no intertextual dialogue was intended with the audience, except perhaps for those scholars who enjoy analyzing Shakespearean adaptations.

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 (Dällenbach 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 H. F. Plett

(4) many texts => many texts i.e. the average experience of intertextuality.

Type (2) is the basis of intertextual serialization. Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe, for instance, gave rise to a multitude of successors that form a specific text group, the 'Robinsonads'. Thomas More's Utopia even initiated a narrative subgenre, the utopian novel, which marks a shift from material to structural intertextuality. A single text mayaiso be the source of intertextual inversion (parody, travesty) and negation (anti-novel, counter-blazon) and hence create generic and subgeneric alternatives.

A well-known intertextual series may illustrate the complexity of syntagmatic intertextuality. The interpretation of Salome as 'femme fatale' can be traced down through several successive stages: (a) Heinrich Heine' s poetic version in his satiric epic Atta Troll (1847) (b) Gustave Moreau's pictures of (a) (e.g., Salome, L'Apparition [1876]) (c) Joris K. Huysmans's pictorial description of (b) in his novel A Rebours

(1884) (d) Oscar Wilde's dramatization of (c) in his play - French version - Salome

(1893) (e) English translation (1894) of (d) by Lord Alfred Douglas (f) Aubrey Beardsley's illustrations of (e) (g) Hedwig Lachmann's German translation (1903) of (d) (h) Richard Strauss' opera version (1905) of (g)

The links in this chain display the following transformations -

A. in the field of material intertextuality:

I. intermedial: 1. verbal => non-verbal a) pictorial b) acoustic

2. non-verbal => verbal

II. interlingual: 1. French 2. French

=> English => German

B. in the field of generic intertextuality:

epic => drama (c => d).

(a => b, e => f) (g => h) (b => c)

This analytical table reveals only part of the complexities involved in intertextual serialization. Any additions, subtractions and permutations that accompany each stage of transformation have been disregarded. The spectrum of intertexts broadens with every prolongation of the extant series (e.g., by theatrical perfor­mances, film versions). All the more difficult is the task for the recipient to disentangle the threads of the intertextual fabric.

Intertextualities 25

3.2.5.2. Condensation

It is by no means an accident that Richard Strauss' opera appears as the most complex link in the chain of Salome intertexts. It incorporates a multiple inter­textuality, both material and structural. The material part consists, among others, of linguistic, musical, choreographie, scenie, and costumic signs. Each type constitutes an intertextual stratum of its own referring, for instance, to musical (e.g., fugue) or choreographie (e.g., oriental dance) pre-texts. If taken together, these strata produce a multi-Iayered material intertextuality. The same applies to dramatic and operatic intergenericity. Both material and structural intertextuality do not exist successively but simultaneously. Their various strata or isotopies are superimposed upon each other. They thus engender a paradig­matic condensation of intertextual poly-isotopies.

Whenever the members of such an intertextual hybrid as the opera disagree with each other, the harmony of its complex relationships is disturbed. The principal means of effecting this disturbance is irony. Its results are parody, travesty, and satire. Outstanding specimens of this intertextual inversion are the comic operas by Jacques Offenbach and the Savoy Operas by Gilbert and Sulli­van, furthermore John Gay and Johann Christoph Pepusch's The Beggar's Op­era and its 20th century intertext, Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill's Die Dreigro­schenoper. All of them ridicule literary and musical topoi, motifs, phrases, struc­tures, and genres and thus create complex ironie intertexts. Disruption and dis­continuity are often regarded as symptoms of intertextual modernity. The ex­amples of Gay, Offenbach, and Gilbert and Sullivan correct this view and point out that this alleged modernity reaches far back into the past.

3.3. Tides of I ntertextuality

Temporality is a factor of prime importance in intertextuality. It is interpreted from two radically opposite perspectives, a synchronie and a diachronie one. The synchronie perspective claims that all texts possess a simultaneous exist­ence. This entails the levelling of all temporal differences; history is suspended in favour of the co-presence of the past. Provided this view is accepted, any text can be interrelated to any other text. An endless ars combinatoria takes place in what has been variously termed "musee imaginaire" (Malraux), "chambre d'echos" (Barthes), or "Bibliotheque generale" (Grivel). The locality designated by these metaphors - memory - may be conceived of as a personal or a collective one. In the first alternative the text canon is based on individual experience, in the latter case perhaps on cultural institutions. Regardless of this differentiation, the inter­textualist is absolutely free to trace relations between texts. This freedom causes a "plaisir du texte" (Barthes 1973) or rather "intertexte" . Such an attitude suits the creative artist, not the discerning scholar. A radically synchronie perspective establishes the artist as intertextualist, whether as a writer or a critic.

As contras ted to this view, the diachronie perspective proposes the historian (of literature, art, music, dance) as intertextualist. Being more of a traditionalist

,I

I

26 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 Spätkultur wird die Welt überschaubar. Man ordnet und sammelt, sucht nach Ver­gleichen und findet überall Analogien. Der Blick gleitet nach rückwärts; der Dichter zitiert, zieht Vergangenes, ironisch gebrochen, noch einmal ans Licht, parodiert die Stile der Jahrtausende, wiederholt und fixiert, bemüht sich um Repräsentation 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 März. 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, muß man die Stile beherrschen: auch Zitat und Montage sind Künste, und das Erbe fruchtbar zu machen, erscheint uns als ein Metier, das aller Ehren wert ist.

In tertextuali ties 27

There is almost nothing to be added to this justification of a literature that does not refer to life but rather to itself. In present-day avantgarde literature Yl?-ecri­ture still dominates ecriture, the text engineer the inspired visionary, the "quotationist" (Milton) the author who seeks to evade the "anxiety of influ­ence" (Bloom). The revers al of this tendency is only a matter of time.

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

1973 1986

Stephen Heath, ed. Image - Music - Text. London: Fontana/New York: HilI & Wang, 1977, 142-148. Le Plaisir du texte. Paris: Editions du Seuil. "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

1979 La seconde main ou le travail de la citation. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Culler, Jonathan

1976 "Presupposition and Intertextuality." Modern Language Notes 91, 1380-1396. Dällenbach, 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 "Intertextualität: Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmer­kungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift/ür 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 H. F. Plett

Grivel, Charles 1978 "Les universaux de texte." Litterature 30, 25-50. 1982 "Theses preparatoires sur les intertextes. " In Renate Lachmann, ed. Dialogizität.

München: 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

1978 Kellett, E. E.

1969

Klotz, Volker 1976

Kristeva, Julia

Statt einer Literaturgeschichte. Pfullingen: Neske, 7th ed.

Literary Quotation and Allusion. Port Washington, N.Y./London: Kennikat Press (orig. 1933).

"Zitat und Montage in neuerer Literatur und Kunst." Sprache im technischen Zeital­ter 57-60,259-277.

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 Liter­

ary Text. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press, 19-40. Morawski, Stefan '

1970 "The Basic Functions of Quotation." In A. J. Greimas, ed. Sign, Language, Culture. 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:

Orr, Leonard 1986

Methuen.

"Intertextuality and the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics." College English 48, 811-823.

Plett, Heinrich F. 1979 Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse: Semiotik, Linguistik, Rhetorik. Heidelberg:

Quelle & Meyer, 2nd ed.

)

In tertextuali ties 29

1988 "The Poetics of Quotation." In J anos S. Petöfi & 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: Ham­

burger Kolloquium zur Intertextualität. 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.

HANS-PETER MAI

Bypassing Intertextuality

Hermeneutics, Textual Practice, Hypertext

1. I ntroduction

"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)

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.

2. Current and Conflicting Notions

The debate on intertextuality so far has spawned a surprising (and confusing) variety of terminological variants and mutations: CCinter-semiocity" (Popovic 1980); CCintercontextuality" (Zurbrugg 1984); CCintratextual rewriting" (Altman

Bypassing Intertextuality 31

1981); CClnterauktorialität" (Schabert 1983); CCinterdiscursivite" (Angenot 1983); CCautotexte" (Dällenbach 1976); etc. (Further examples can be found in Pugliese 1988, note 66.) Yet this terminological inflation is not a fertile elaboration of a sufficiently defined and agreed upon concept but rather indicative of a contest for meaning.

The basic dis agreement about intertextuality is whether it is to be regarded as a general state of affairs textual or as an inherent quality of specific texts. The least contentious meaning of 'intertextual' designates any allusion in one text to another text. It serves as a handy label for signalling some sort of interconnect­edness: CClntertextuality involves the relation of one text to other texts" (Mail­loux 1982, 151). But although the concept, thus understood, is eminently usable as scholarly jargon, it is rather banal, as Tallis (1988) points out:

At its least ambitious, the 'intertextuality' thesis is ab out literature. Non-contentiously, it takes its rise from the obvious fact that many literary works are explicitly or implicitly allusive. Schol­arly references, quotations, echoes, reworkings of traditional themes, deliberate employment of established styles and retelling classic or archetypal 'literary' stories, the deIiberate contrivance of ironic effects by the juxtaposition of disparate and incompatible styles - these intertextual features have been the very stuff of literature since ancient times. (31)

A restricted intertextuality would refer to all possible textual references within the clearly delimited domain of beiles lettres. Such usage is indeed common. Galan (1985), forexample, employs theterm in this sense in his comprehensive presenta­tion of the Prague School of structuralism when he states that these structuralists were cc concerned with the autonomous or intertextual functioning of literature as literature" (21), with intertextuality as ccthe laws of immanent evolution" (8).

Yet what complicates matters is that 'intertextuality' often serves as a syn­onym for 'deconstruction' or 'poststructuralism'. Nye (1987), for one, clearly equates the CCintertextual, an irregular mesh of differences and deferrals", with the Derridean differance (669). Leitch (1983) also associates the term 'intertex­tual' with a discussion of deconstruction. Notably, he views the development of notions of (inter-)textuality historically as a 'political' strategy:

In the late 1960s and early 1970s deconstructive theorists conceive intertextuality as something of a weapon to be used in the contemporary struggle over meaning and truth. Intertextuality [is] a text's dependence on and infiltration by prior codes, concepts, conventions, unconscious prac­tices, and texts [ ... ]. (161)

Summing up the deconstructive project and practice, Leitch writes:

[D]econstruction takes the semiological theory of the sign (signifier + signified) beyond the sliding signified to the floating signifier. (Notice that it eschews the referent.) Since language serves as ground of existence, the world emerges as infinite Text. Everything gets textualized. All contexts, whether political, economic, social, psychological, historical, or theological become intertexts; that is, outside influences and forces und ergo textualization. Instead of literature we have textuality; in place of tradition, intertextuality. Authors die so that readers may come into prominence. [ ... ] What are texts? [ ... ] Sites for the freeplay of grammar, rhetoric, and (illusory) reference.[ ... ] Truth comes forth in the reifications, the personal pleasures, of reading. Truth is not an entity or property of the text. [ ... ] Deconstruction works to deregulate controlled dis­semination and celebrate misreading. (122)

32 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; Grübel1983; 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 (Nöth 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 Platol AristotlelOvid 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-

Bypassing Intertextuality 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; Günther 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.

3. The Critical Context (1)

Kristeva developed her notion of intertextuality at a time when academic literary criticism underwent a "crisis, culminating in the late 1960s, of the traditional definition of the cultural function of the humanities, and especially the study of literature" (Weimann 1985, 278). Weimann has conveniently summarized the issues on which the consensus of the intellectual community was falling apart (278- 84). The emerging concept of 'intertextuality' was one of the symptoms of this crisis.

The greatest challenge to traditionalliterary scholarship issued from linguistic models of inquiry which had acquired prestige because of their allegedly scien­tific nature. 1 This linguistic-structuralist approach promised to do away with subjective fallacies such as intuition. At last, literary studies seemed to be able to attain a degree of objective knowledge which had been hitherto reserved for the

1 On the problematic notion of a 'scientific' literary criticism cf. Seamon (1989).

f,T,

34 H.-P. Mai

'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 I 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

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

2 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).

. Bypassing Intertextuality 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 social function of such a hermeneutic procedure is to overcome feelings of alienation. Ricoeur is refreshingly open about this: "One of the aims of all her­meneutics is to struggle against cultural distance. This struggle can be under­stood in purely temporal terms as a struggle against secular estrangement" (159) . After all,the traditional hermeneutic approach is an attempt of the (intellectual) individual to posit hirns elf within the cultural tradition (a critical account of this hermeneutic tradition is given by Pugliese 1988,23-36). Accordingly, Ricoeur holds that the text's meaning sterns from the "tradition in the very interior of a text" (163). The interpreter's role is to surrender hirnself to the text, passively, but also knowingly and deliberately - i.e. contemplatively. 4

Ricoeur' s position may serve as a backdrop against which a new poststruc­turalist skepticism articulated itself, a skepticism concerning both scientific and

4 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. J ameson 1985; Hohendahl1980.

36 H.-P. Mai

hermeneutic models of interpretation. It was a skepticism which doubted the possibility of any master theory. And it questioned also (for political reasons) Ricoeur's attempt to reconcile then popular structuralist thought with tradi­tional hermeneutics. A good summary of the ensuing changes in the field of literary criticism is given by Hartman (1976). Most pertinent to our purpose, Hartman applies the notion of intertextuality to the activity of the critic: his writing, he holds, gains an "allusive, dense, intertextual quality" (209) and stresses "the co-presence in literary works (broadly understood) of mixed or even discontinuous orders of discourse" (218). This confronts us squarely again with the initial question: is intertextuality an artistic procedure and hence a quality inherent in a work of art, or a function of a critic's (reader's) activity?

But first something remains to be clarified: what, actually, is the 'text' to which 'intertextuality' refers?

4. Versions 0/ 'Text' and Tel Quel

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).

Brütting 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 (Brütting 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 unmöglich 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

The intellectual context of the development of the poststructuralist notion of 'textuality' by a group of intellectuals affiliated with the periodical Tel Quel is excellently explained by Brütting (cf. also Grimm 1987; Moi 1986; Kao 1981). He provides a concise history of the group's composition and its general intel­lectual orientation (Brütting 1976, 115-120), and he rightly stresses its leftist political commitment. Tel Quel emerges as a group of oppositional intellectuals whose assorted theories are marked, to a variable extent, by Saussurean, Marx­ist-Maoist, and psychoanalytical notions (especially in their reformulation by Jacques Lacan).5 Yet it would be wrong to ascribe to them a unified theoretical outlook. The group has been much more characterized by internal dissension than by a monolithic point of view. Tel Quel's political enthusiasm, although following Marxist precepts, is most aptly characterized as 'textual'. 'Text', for its adherents6

, is no lünger only a superstructural epiphenomenon but, if wielded correctly, a basic ideological weapon which can contribute directly to a rev­olutionary change in society.7 This 'text' is no Ion ger the object with which textual criticism used to deal. Actually it is no object at all; it is, as a way of writing (ecriture), a productive (and subversive) process.

Somewhat hard to grasp but mostimportant to see is Tel Quel's aversion to the concept of communication. In their ;view, communication acts mainly as the agent of social cohesion by pressing fpr consensus. Against the 'straight jacket' of common sense Tel Quelians tried to posit their subversive linguistic practice. Consequently, they favoured the connotative 'text' and pitted it against all de­notative language, which they held to be only designed to guarantee law and order. 'Text', Kristeva held most poignantly, is the expression of a "defiant pro­ductivity" (1986, 42).

The 'textual' rebels resorted to strong fundamental arguments in order to justify their attitudes and practices. But historically it is necessary to point out the much more mundane opposition which also fueled the 'textual' criticism of Tel Quel: the traditional French practice of explication de texte (cf. Brütting 1976,26-32). Brütting makes it perfectly clear that

die oft überspitzten und radikalen Kritiken der literaturtheoretischen Avantgarde in Frankreich nicht zu verstehen sind, wenn man sich nicht vor Augen hält, gegen welche literarischen Traditionen und Ideologien, gegen welche literarischen Institutionen sie sich zu situieren ver­suchen. [ ... ] In der [explication de texte} lebt das 19. Jahrhundert weiter, das sie erfunden hat [ .. .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.

6 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).

7 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 Brütting is not alone in this assessment. Grimm, who provides a concise his tory of French academic literary criticism, also finds: "Die fr[ anzösische] univ[ ersitäre] 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).

9 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

begun to re-examine languages in order to isolate their (its) models or patterns" (75). In contrast to linguistic structuralism which modeled itself on the exact sciences, Kristeva envisages a discipline which tries not only to come to grips with its objects, but, at the same time, seeks to be aware of the fact that those objects are always constituted as objects of knowledge in the first place, not found. Hence, Kristeva's brand of semiotics is marked by its self-reflexiveness: "[T]his is where semiotics differs from the exact sciences, [ ... ] the former is also the production of its own model-making" (77); "[s]emiotics is [ ... ] a mode of thought where science sees itself as (is conscious of itself as) a theory" (77). The consequences are far-reaching:

This means that semiotics is at once are-evaluation of its object and/or of its models, a critique both of these mode1s'(and therefore of the sciences from which they are borrowed) and of itself (as a system of stable truths). [ ... ] semiotics cannot hardeninto a science let alone into the science, for it is an open form of research, a constant critique that turns back on itself and offers its own auto-critique. As it is its own theory, semiotics is the kind of thought which, without raising itself to the level of a system, is still capable of modelling (thinking) itself. (77)

The next sentence characterizes such a semiotics as a critique of ideology (in contrast to traditional hermeneutics) but also as a paradoxical enterprise: "But this reflexive movement is not a circular one [as in hermeneutics]. Semiotic re­search remains a form of inquiry that ultimately uncovers its own ideological gesture, only in order to re cord and deny it before starting all over again" (77 f.). Finally, Kristeva asserts:

Semiotic practice breaks with this teleological vision of a science that is subordinated to a philosophical system and consequently even destined itself to become a system. Without becom­ing a system, the site of semiotics, where models and theories are developed, is a place of dispute and self-questioning, a 'cirde' that remains open. Its 'end' does not rejoin its 'beginning', but, on the contrary, rejects and rocks it, opening up the way to another discourse, that is, another subject and another method [ ... ]. (78)

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 com-

10 For Marx's early concept of 'work', on which Kristeva's notions are most likely based, cf. Röder (1989).

40 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 literary scholar's intertextual task would be to define "the specificity of different textual arrangements by placing them within the general text (culture) of which they are part and which is in turn, part of them" (36). The intertextual procedure would, "by study'ing the text as intertextuality, conside[r] it as such within (the text of) society and history" (37). Kristeva's notion of intertextuality here resembles very closely a sociological theory of literature. The important difference is that Kristeva no Ion ger conceives of society Ihistory as something outside the text, some objective entity over against the text, but partaking of the same textuality as literature.

Questions as to the scientific status of such an approach are somewhat mis­leading. They seem inappropriate, first of all, if one considers that Kristeva is trying to demonstrate that a 'pure science' is an impossible notion in the semiotic sphere because there is no privileged meta-level from which we can askl answer universal questions. But Kristeva also very intentionally subverts scientific con-

11 On the fundamental difference between Hegelian and Marxian dialectics cf. Seung (1982, 104-112).

12 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.

Bypassing Intertextuality 41

ventions: In her very writing she blithely appropriates scientific terminology from diverse disciplines for her own purposes. 13 She explicitly justifies this ap­propriation in the methodological essay presented above. In it she advocates a deliberate "subversion of the existing terminology" (1986 a, 79), which Marx allegedly also practiced (80). On the one hand, "[s]emiotics [ ... ] rejects a humanist and subjectivist terminology, and addresses itself to the vocabulary of the exact sciences" (80). But it does so not in order to claim objectivity but to

appropriate the terms and re-evaluate them: "Far from being simply a stock of models on which semiotics can draw, these annexed sciences ar~ also the object which semiotics challenges in order to make itself into an explicit critique" (79). The ultimate aim is the discovery of ideology in all 'objective' assertions: "Play­ing [ ... ] on the different meanings a term acquires in different theoretical con­texts, semiotics reveals how science is born in ideology" (79).14

It is important to see the political motivations behind Kristeva's early theoret­ical efforts. Intertextuality is one lever in her theoretical attempt to dislocate the mainstays of the "bourgeois world" (1986 a, 75). Hence, Kristeva's intertextual­ity is a far cry from being taxonomic. In her eyes it is a politically transformative practice. In the last resort, hers is a political concept which aims at empowering the reader! critic to oppose the literary and social tradition at large.

4.2. Barthes

The greatest congruence of Kristeva and Barthes15 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 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).

14 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.

15 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

have to be overcome by embracing "a new field of reference" (Barthes 1981,35), namely dialectical materialism and psychoanalysis :

For there to be a new science it is not enough, in effect, for the old science to become deeper and wider (which is what happens when one passes from the linguistics of the senten ce to the semiot­ics of the work); there has to be a meeting of different epistemes, indeed on es that normally know nothing of each other (as is the case with Freudianism, Marxism, and structuralism), and this meeting has to produce a new object (it is no Ion ger a question of a new approach to an old object): in the event, it is this new object that we call text. (35)

The major drawback of tradition al scholarship, according to Barthes, is that its epistemological concern has always been with "objective signification" (37). In contrast, the new textual practice is marked by signifiance, a ceaseless semantic productivity :

The text works what? Language. It deconstructs the language of communication, representation, or expression [ ... ] and reconstructs another language [ ... ] having neither bottom nor surface [ ... ] but the stereographic space of the combinative play, which is infinite once one has gone outside the limits of current communication [ ... ] and of narrative or discursive ver­isimilitude. (37)

This new object, 'text', is intertextual by default:

The text redistributes language [ ... J. One of the paths of this deconstruction-reconstruction is to perrnute texts, scraps of texts that have existed or exist around and finally within the text being considered: any text is an intertext; other texts are present in it, at varying levels, in more or less recognisable forms: the texts of the previous and surrounding culture. (39)

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: "[L Je Texte participe a sa 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 H.-P. Mai

One should beware of too easily dismissing Barthes's or Kristeva's notions of intertextuality. Their somewhat eclectic theoretical underpinnings do invite misinterpretation. Yet what is important to see historically is that these concepts partake of a more general tendency towards a more reader-oriented criticism, which has turned out to be the most stimulating innovation in literary scholar­ship of the 1970s.

Subsequently the sociological, that is, the politically activist, aspects of inter­textuality were shoved into the background. The busy applicators from the field of literary studies took over. Kristeva herself abandoned her eclectically un­stable theoretical building in favour of a foundation on what Lewis aptly calls "a psychobiological model of the germination of semiosis" (Lewis 1974,30) in her Revolution du langage pohique. In this book Kristeva also discards the term 'intertextuality' in favour of 'transposition' (Kristeva 1986 c, 111), a term which she uses in a clearly psychoanalytical context. She explicitly criticizes those scholars who take 'intertextuality' for a fashionable label for source-influence studies. But this did not stop the process of appropriation.

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

Bypassing Intertextuality 45

cherished notions of the artistic textY Rejecting Kristeva's radicalized notion of intertextuality (of whose consequences he is aware, as his discussion of Bur­roughs shows) and the linguistically formalized version of M. Arrive (1973) as weIl, Jenny favours "an approach that is at once more naive and more concrete, which apprehends the text as the material object it is" (50) - the 'material art object', that is, of traditionalliterary studies. Completely in line with these con­servative inhibitions, J enny favours dear intertextual demarcations ("we pro­pose to speak of intertextuality only when there can be found in a text elements exhibiting a structure created previous to the text" [40]) and even suggests an intertextual taxonomy based on rhetorical figures (54-58).19 He tries to ensure the 'concreteness' of his approach by the extensive application of his notion of intertextuality to exemplary texts.

In line with Jenny's proposals but further restricting the original Kristevian idea, some German scholars have tried in recent years to make the concept of intertextuality more operational (cf. the contributions to Broich/Pfister 1985 in particular). The theoretical consequences are deplorable. One representative case is M. Lindner (1985), who aims at a unified model of description in order to point out the intertextual semantic enrichment possible through a rearrange­ment of textual elements in an intertextual way (117-119). She draws the methodologicalline by complaining that much poststructural reasoning lacks "terminologische Sauberkeit und logische Stringenz [terminological tidiness and logical stringency]" (199, note 5; my translation). Her own approach, on the other hand, fails to consider its own status. The author is so bent on system building that the self-reflexive character of any (critical) intertextual procedure as demanded by Kristeva is simply ignored. (Once she does speak of the neces­sary consideration of ideological implications [133J but it is highly likely that these considerations are strongly related to the presumed authorial intentions also mentioned.)

Perhaps the best way to assess a more conservative, applicable version of in­tertextuality is by looking at the results it yields. In this regard the actual exam­pIes of intertextual interpretative practice cast some doubt on the usefulness of a restricted notion of intertextuality. Arecent article by W. Füger (1989) (who explicitly refers to the Broich orientation as the one developed furthest [179, note 2]) unwittingly makes these deficiencies dear. Füger presents an interesting 'intertextual' reading of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, but except for his gen­eral theoretical prelude on intertextuality (179-185), the author could have dis­pensed with the term altogether.20 At best, the concept of intertextuality in his

18 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).

19 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.

20 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 H.-P. Mai

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).

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. 21 For further criticisms of the Riffaterrean version of intertextuality (Riffaterre 1978), cf. Fread­

man (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).

Bypassing Intertextuality 47

6. The Critical Context (11)

Is it then useless to talk of 'intertextual scholarship'? Obviously, even conserva­tive intertextualists agree with Kristeva's observation that in one artistic text there coexist, more or less visibly, several other texts. This seems to be the mini­mal consensus in intertextual studies. A scholarly concern proceeding from such an assumption then would, first of all, have to identify and disentangle these texts. This is wh at tradition al textual criticism in general and source-influence studies in particular did and still do. Recent intertextual scholars with a tax­onomic bent have tried to integrate this traditional preoccupation into a struc­tural supermodel. Yet this, by itself, does not ensure any intellectual advances: the results are still of an archiv al nature, the outcome of basically positivistic endeavours. What Kristeva originally envisioned, though, was a new kind of hermeneutics. But what in it was actually innovative, aside from the fancy jar­gon?

Traditionalliterary studies are work-(and author-)oriented. They hold that literary works are something fit to be respected, if not admired, something au­thoritative. In their critical effort they aim to find, eventually, the one correct meaning of a complex but unified message (the 'reliable text'). Even if they are hermeneutically aware that this one message is never to be fixed because the historical process of appropriation of meaning is never to be halted, they still do not give up the attempt to approximate the 'actual' meaning. Traditional her­meneutics as weIl as positivistic studies are persistent in their quest for positive knowledge. They do not give in to wholesale relativity nor do they relegate the production of literary meaning completely to the recipient. They hold that meaning exists apart from meaning producers. Hence, literary scholarship's basic function is to reaffirm a system of cherished aesthetic notions of long standing (cf. Ruthven 1979,passim).

Those approaches to literat ure which modeled themselves, alternatively, on the natural sciences were only a partial challenge to established literary studies. The assumption that it is worthwhile to concern yourself with the analysis of literature per se was not principally doubted. The aim of these literary 'scientists' was to achieve as much systemic control over the literary text as other sciences would like to attain over other phenomena of life.

Clearly, in the 1960s the traditional contemplative self-sufficiency of literary studies had been undermined for various reasons. But the radical doubt that was to shake the epistemic foundations of the academic establishment was intro­duced only by minds bent on political activism. The deliberately political criti­cism of Tel Quel denounced the social function of academic ('bourgeois') criti­cism as complicit with a social system of real injustices. Traditional criticism's tendency to accumulate 'precious' meaning was polemically equated with the capitalist's hoarding of profits. Humanist culture was accused of cultural hegemony~

r I

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 poststructuralistl deconstructive 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

'Hypertext' is a computer environment which, among other things, allows fast non-sequential access to large amounts of loosely structured texts in electronic form. 23 (Good first introductions are provided by Fiderio 1988 and Franklin 1989; for a very thorough presentation consult Conklin 1987.) Yankelovich et al. (1988) describe it as follows: "In essence, a hypertext system allows authors or groups of authors to link information together, create paths through a body of related material, annotate existing texts, and create notes that direct readers to either bibliographic data or the body of the referenced text" (81). ~ hypertext file can initially be conceived of as a textual database. Differing

from other database management systems, hypertext embeds links within the original text to other physically unrelated texts. Thus, the computer user can immediately jump from one text to another. For example, in its simplest form such a file can be used to store the text of apoern. Once this is done, textual variants, explanations of unusual words, annotations or references of any kind can be attached to this textual item. These secondary texts are located in another 'area' of the hypertext structure but can be called up instantly. Secondary textual segments can, in turn, be linked to other secondary textual segments, or com­ments can be appended to them. A reference to a secondary source can be linked to the original text (as long as it is available in electronic form, which will in­creasingly be the case) or even the relevant segment of the referenced text. Of course, informal queries for single expressions can also be conducted, which allows for a serendipitous strategy of inquiry, very often appropriate to humanities scholars in particular. In addition, some hypertext systems are not restricted to verbal information only. They are able to store pictures, sounds, even animations and also can control external devices such as video recorders, CD players, etc. Their linking capacity can be extended to these kinds of infor­mation and.information sources as well. (A practical hypertext application in

22 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).

23 Incidentally, this "hypertext" has nothing whatsoever to do with Genette's (1982) use of the term.

50 H.-P. Mai

literary studies is described by Landow [1989].) Furthermore, a hypertext sys­tem can wörk 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

[e]ross referenees [ ... ] beeome identieal with textuality, not just proximate and mutually ~n­flueneing 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/per- \ sonal 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:

[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)

Whether this state of electronic affairs resembles something like "Nietzsche' s description of nihilism as astate of indetermination wherein everything is per­mitted - and as a result nothing is chosen deeply, authentically, and existen­tially" (211) is debatable. But it is certainly a pertinent observation that in this new 'intertextual' medium "text [ e.g. literature] is increasingly experienced as data" (213), i.e. as "only one unvalorized variant" of text (Kristeva 1986 a, 87) -which will again evoke the well-known (and not completely unfounded) uneasi­ness of more traditionalliterary scholars.

On the other hand, as Bolter (1989) points out, "the autonomy of the elec­tronic text is only apparent. Behind the chan ging words and structure lies a program, and behind the program a human programmer" (139) - not to mention the hardware owner. The most important question from a Kristevian point of

Bypassing Intertextuality 51

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

[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)

And reorganization can be accomplished relatively easily. Eventually, it will all depend on whether "the pro gram allows the reader to make changes in the text or to add his own connections (as some hypertext systems do)" (142).

Finally, one should remember that suggestions - by a pro gram designer - as to which path( s) to follow can doubtlessly be very helpful. Guidance through the intertextual computer network may be even indispensible in a situation, such as the present one, which is marked by a veritable flood of information. Here it will again become necessary for the user to distinguish between helpful hints and manipulation. In this regard, too, a critical attitude will not become obsolete. And this also ultimately means that without/outside the mind there is no inter­text relevant to uso

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 förgotten: that literature is (also) medi-

r

52 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. Semi­

otics 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: Fon­

tana/Collins, 142-148. 1977 b "Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers." Image - Music- Text. Ed. Stephen Heath. Glas­

gow: Fontana/Collins, 190-215 (orig. 1971). 1979 "From Work to Text." In Josue V. Harari, ed. Textual Strategies: Perspectives in

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-S trauss to

Derrida. Oxford: Oxford UP, 116-153.

Bypassing Intertextuality 53

Brandt, Joan 1987 "The Systematics of a Non-System: Julia Kristeva's Revisionary Semioti~s." Ameri­

canJournal ofSemiotics 5,133-150. Broich, Ulrich & Manfred Pfister, eds.

1985 Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: 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.

Brütting, Richard 1976 "ecriture" und "texte": Die französische Literaturtheorie "nach dem Strukturalis­

mus": Kritik traditioneller Positionen und Neuansätze. 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. Mühodes 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 Sub­

ject. London/Henley/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dällenbach, 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 "Intertextualität: Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmer­

kungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 9, 497-522.

r

54 H.-P. Mai

Feral, J. 1980 "Kristevian Semiotics: Towards a Semanalysis. " In R. W. Bailey et al., eds. The Sign:

Fiderio, J anet

Semiotics Around the World. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan Slavic Publications, rev. ed., 271-279.

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. Füger, Wilhelm

1989 "Intertextualia Orwelliana: Untersuchungen zur Theorie und Praxis der Markierung von Intertextualität." Poetica 21,179-200.

Galan, F. W. 1985 Historic Structures: The Prague School Project, 1928-1946. London/Sydney: Croom

Helm. Genette, Gerard

1982 Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre. Paris: Seuil. Grimm, Jürgen

1987 "Methoden der französischen Literaturwissenschaft." In Jürgen Grimm et al. Ein­führung in die französische Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 3rd rev. ed., 101-171.

Grivel, Charles 1975 "Quant a l'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.

Grübel, Rainer 1983 "Die Geburt des Textes aus dem Tode der Texte: Strukturen und Funktionen der

Intertextualität in Dostoevkijs Roman 'Die Brüder Karamazov' im Lichte seines Mottos." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 205-271.

GÜnther,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. 1985

Hassan, Ihab 1984

"Text, Context, Intertext." Journal of Literary Studies 1,1-13.

"The Re-Vision of Literature: Rhetoric, Imagination, Vision." In Manfred Pütz & Peter Freese, eds. Postmodernism in American Literature: A Critical Anthology. Darmstadt: Thesen, 95-117 (orig. 1980).

Bypassing Intertextuality 55

Hauff, Jürgen 1985 "Hermeneutik." In Jürgen Hauff et al. Methodendiskussion: Arbeitsbuch zur Litera­

turwissenschaft. Vol. 2: Hermeneutik - Marxismus. Königstein/Ts.: Athenäum, 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. München: W. Fink.

Hohendahl, Peter Uwe

1980 "Politisierung der Kunsttheorie: Zur ästhetischen Diskussion nach 1965." In P. M.

Horan, Chris 1987

Lützeler & E. Schwarz, eds. Deutsche Literatur in der BRD seit 1965. Königstein/ Ts.: Athenäum, 282-299.

"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

1975

1980a

1980b

1986a

1986 b

1986c

Le texte du roman: Approche semiologique d'une structure discursive transfor­mationelle. The Hague: Mouton. "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). "The Bounded Text." Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Oxford: B. BlackwelI, 36-63 (orig. 1968). "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). "Semiotics: A Critical Science and/or a Critique of Science." The Kristeva Reader. Ed. TorilMoi. Oxford: B. BlackwelI, 75-88 (orig. 1968). "Word, Dialogue and Novel." The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: B.

BlackwelI, 34-61 (orig. 1966). "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 Dialogizität. München: W. Fink. Lachmann, Renate

1984 "Ebenen des Intertextualitätsbegriffs." 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, Jürgen 1977 "Ambivalenz und Dialogizität: Zur Theorie der Rede bei Michail Bachtin. " In Fried­

rich 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. 1983

1985

"Thematic Analysis: Systems, Structures, and Strategies." Recherches Semiotiquesl Semiotic Inquiry 3/2,159-187. "Ideology, Intertextuality, and the Notion ofRegister." In James D. Benson & Wil­liam 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 Intertextualität." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 116-135.

Mailloux, Steven 1982 Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca/Lon­

don: Cornell up. Martens, Gunter

1989 "Was ist ein Text? Ansätze 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

1985

1986

"Marginality and Subversion: Julia Kristeva." SexuallTextual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London/New York: Methuen, 150-173. "Introduction." In Julia Kristeva. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: 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.

Nöth, 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:

1989 Cotnell UP. "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 Intertextualität." 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 Köpeczi 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

über literaturwissenschaftliche Methodologie und Methodik." In Ilse Nolting­Hauff & Joachim Schulze, eds. Das fremde Wort: Studien zur Interdependenz von Texten: Festschrift für Kar! Maurer zum 60. Geburtstag. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 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 Liter­

ary Text." Semiotica 75, 229-255. Ricoeur, Paul

1981 a

1981 b

"What Is a Text? Explanation and Understanding." Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. Ed. & tr. John B. Thomp-son. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1 Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de I'Homme, 145-164 (orig. 1970). "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.

Röder, Petra 1989 . "Po eta Faber: Der frühromantische poiesis-Gedanke und die Idee der cfreien be­

wußten Tätigkeit' bei Karl Marx." Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwis­senschaft & Geistesgeschichte 63,521-546.

58 H.-P. Mai

Rommetveit, Ragnar 1988 "On Literacy and the Myth of Literal Meaning." In Roger Säljö, 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, Post­

modernism. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP I London/Toronto: Associated University Presses, 181-193.

Ruthven, K. K. 1979 CriticalAssumptions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Schabert, Ina 1983 "Interauktorialität." Deutsche VierteljahresschriJt für Literaturwissenschaft & Gei­

stesgeschichte 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. Schmid, Wolf & Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds.

1983 Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualität. Wien: Wiener Slawi­stischer Almanach.

, Schoeck, RichardJ. 1984 Intertextuality and Renaissance Texts. Bamberg: H. Kaiser.

Schulte-Middelich, Bernd 1985 "Funktionen intertextueller Textkonstitution. " In Broich & Pfister, eds., 197-242.

Seamon, Roger ,. 1989 "Poetics Against Itself: On the Self-Destruction of Modern Scientific Criticism."

PMLA 104,294-305. Selden, J ohn

1868 Table-Talk (1689). Ed. Edward Arber. London: English Reprints. Seung, T.K.

1982 Structuralism and Hermeneutics. New York: Columbia UP. Shukman, Ann

1980 "Between Marxism and Formalism: The Stylistics of Mikhail Bakhtin." Compara­tive Criticism, 221-234.

Stierle, Karlheinz & Rainer Warning, eds. 1984 Das Gespräch. München: W. Fink.

Stierle, Karlheinz 1983 "Werk und Intertextualität." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 7-26.

Stonum, Gary Lee 1977 "For a Cybernetics of Reading." Modern Language Notes 92, 945-968. 1989 "Cybernetic Explanation as a Theory of Reading." N ew Literary History 20,

397-410. 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

Tel Quel, eds. 1968 Theorie d'ensemble. Paris: Seuil.

Threadgold, Terry 1987 "Changing the Subject." In Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold, eds. Language Topics:

Essays in Honourof Michael Halliday. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benja­mins, 549-597.

1988 "What Did Milton Say Belial Said and Why Don't the Critics Believe Hirn?" In James D. Benson & MichaelJ. Cummings & William S. Greaves, eds. Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 331-392.

Trigg, Randall H. & Lucy A. Suchman 1989 "Collaborative Writing in NoteCards." Hypertext: Theory into Practice. Ed. Ray

McAleese. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 45-61. Turkle, Sherry

1978 Psychoanalytic Politics: Freud's French Revolution. New York: Basic Books. Ulmer, Gregory L.

1983 "The Object of Post-Criticism." In HaI Foster, ed. The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press, 83-110.

Weimann, Robert 1985 "Textual Identity and Relationship: A Metacritical Excursion into History." In

Mario J. Valdes & Owen Miller, eds. Identity of the Literary Text. Toronto: Univer­sity ofToronto Press, 274-293.

White, Allon 1984 "Bakhtin, Sociolinguistics and Deconstruction." In Frank Gloversmith, ed. The

Theory of Reading. Brighton: Harvester Press I Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 123-146 ..

Wolf, Dennie & Deborah Hicks 1989 "The Voices within Narratives: The Development ofIntertextuality in Young Chil­

dren's Stories." Discourse Processes 12, 329-351. Yankelovich, Nicole & BernardJ. Haan & Norman K. Meyrowitz & Steven M. Drucker

1988 "Intermedia: The Concept and the Construction of a Seamless Information Environ­ment." IEEE Computer 21 Oan), 81-96.

Zappa, Frank 1974 "Be-Bop Tango (Of the Old Jazzmen's Church)." Roxy & Elsewhere. Discreet,

DIS 89200. Zepp, Evelyn H.

1982 "The Criticism of Julia Kristeva: A New Mode of Critical Thought." Romanic Re­view 73, 80-97.

Zurbrugg, Nicholas 1984 "Burroughs, Barthes, and the Limits of Intertextuality." Review of Contemporary

Fiction 4,86-107.

! i

HANS-GEORGE RUPRECHT

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality

aMaxPaul

1. Interlocking Analogies

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 INTER­

TEXTUALITY1 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 "Geprägte 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 'clas-sic 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.

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 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 ...

... grapes with no seed but sea-foam, Ivy in scupper-hole. (Pound, Cantos H, 1. 60-61).

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

in regard to the reader- and/or listener-oriented narrative as a prolepsis. N ow, as far as Arachne's work is concerned, Ovid's coreferential focus on the JNTERTEXT

is strictly anaphoric, that is an implicit representation of her "intertexturai" (- "of or belonging to texture" ([OEDJ) skills. Both are figurae functionally (in the sense of L. Hjelmslev's semiotics) related to each other. And yet, it might be argued, in (a) Ovid hints at the 'nature' and in (b) at the 'significance' of JNTERTEXTUALlTY.

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 intertex­tualite a. Kristeva). (Cf. Angenot 1983; Genette 1982; Grivel1982; Jacques 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

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 63

TEXTURES whichappear to be "doxastically identical need not to be epistemicallY identical" (Foley 1987,283 and elsewhere)? A.J. Greimas (1987, 165-179) has argued that the semiotic analysis of the epistemic act suggests a modallinkage between "the fiduciary and the logical" dimensions of cognition. Hence his con­clusion: "Believing and knowing thus are part of the same cognitive universe" (179). (For further discussions on 'knowledge and belief', cf. Parret 1983.) As one might expect, investigating this 'universe' entails demanding research on 'cognitive semanties' and 'mental representations' alike (cf. J. Barwise, G. Fauconnier, R. Jackendorff, G. Lakoff, etc.; in Eco 1988). Although new ground has been broken in this area of research, it still remains an open question to what extent this has a direct bearing on the problems (decidable? semidecid­able? undecidable?) of isotopic (Greimas) intertextual networking (cf. Ruprecht 1977).

From these points of view it seems then that Morgan's (1985, 35) convictions will be greeted with skepticism; in particular what she has put forth, nomotheti­cally, almost in terms of a First Philosophy: "Essential [sie] to humanists and sciehtists alike, the notion of intertextuality is the necessary [ sie] interdiscipli­nary dimension of a semiotic of knowledge." It is fairly obvious, logically speak­ing, that the 'necessary' is possibly at variance with the 'contingent'. Also, fol­lowing the main semiotic traditions (e.g., Saussuro-Hjelmslevean, Peircean), there are no custodians of consolidated 'knowledge' in the spheres of semiosis, and the tendency is rather to question the alleged self-evidence of an 'interdisci­plinary dimension'. In any event, the potentialities of meta-disciplinary vari­ables remain unaccountable to many a savant as long as they are put in terms of a notional discourse. In order to comprehend and to convey the 'notion of inter­textuality' one is probably well advised to do away with the phantom of its a priori transdisciplinary truth value (infallible vs. fallible).

In addition, it should be emphasized that a context-sensitive approach to the process of intertextual semiosis steers clear of an idealistic adaequatio rei cum intellectu and the essentialities of the "metaphysical jungle" (W V. O. Quine). Moreover, this approach must in fact awaken to the sense of its proper discursiv­ity: that is to say, to the question of the not-so-obvious analytic and descriptive relevance of the researcher' s idiosyncratic, ever so often interdiscursively con­strued conceptualisms. What are the categorial instruments shared for instance by the humanistic and the social scientific inquiry into the relevancy of hy­pothesized TEXTURES ? In its most general and cross-disciplinary acceptation this term refers to "the distinctive textures of the various sciences, and suggests [sic] that separate textur es exist even within each established discipline" (Fiske & Shweder 1986, 365).

Quite clearly then, both "theory and practice of intertextuality" (Morgan 1985, 9) posit the problem of a discursively contained and containing heuristic potentiality. At all events, there lies a transient cause for methodological contin­geneies. However, this holds only to a certain degree. As far as literary "intertex­tualists" (Plett 1986, 293) are concerned, this potentia of discourse is of course

" I

r7,' ~I

64 H.-G. Ruprecht

historically and socioculturally "anchored", as T. J. Reiss (1988, 134) puts it while discussing this potentia in relation to the 'principle of uncertainty' (Heisenberg, etc. revisited via Peirce and Deleuze). Given these tenets, one may wonder how the anchorage of this discourse potential occurs on the shifting sands of historical processes. What does this mean in respect to the multiply connected 'polysystem' (I. Even-Zohar) of literature? For a fact, H. F. Plett (1986,311) gives an interesting example which should be further scrutinized: the problem of quotation in normative poetics.

In the course of literary history, the potential normative conflict between quotation and con­text has given rise to specific literary forms. These have only been possible since the time when conventions became obsolete and could therefore be called in question. Parody and travesty are such forms of literature which invert the norm of generic conventions. Parody transposes "base" topics, persons, actions, places and times into "high" style, whereas travesty transposes "high" topics, persons, pi aces and times into a "low" style.

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.)

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 65

2.1. Portentous Potentials

If literary knowledge presupposes intertextual cognition, does this then enhance the complexity of the so-called semantic encyclopedia?

Interestingly enough, U. Eco (1988) has reframed his idea of a 'semantic en­cyclopedia' (lgloball vs. /locall; /rough/ vs. /specific/) in a brilliant sci-fi conte philosophique "On Truth". Whereas semioticians, of the Paris school in particu­lar, have taken exception to his controversial notion of the encyclopedia, pre­cisely on ac count of the "discours veridictoire" (A. J. Greimas) and its epistemic modalization, Eco, in advance of the next if not of several generations of high­powered computers fore teils how the encylopedic CSP (=" Charles Sanders Per­sonal, Antiopodean Computer") will actually process "the world of the text". But what kind of world is this, the textual one? Even though it is definitely a 'possible world', perhaps showing consistencies within the inconsistent, isotopic order coming of chaos and noise (in H. Atlan's sense), it will, like the INTERTEXT, have to be captured by in-I de- and abduction.

To collect further thoughts on these contingencies a different line of argu­ment, equally pre-theoretic, might offer a guiding hand. In order to see its impli­cations, it would help if we reconsider briefly the so-called burlesque, parodic and travesting discourse in 17th-century France (cf. Genette 1988, 20- 88 and elsewhere). Concerning, for instance, a research program on and into the inter­textuality of Scarron's Virgile travesti, one must take into account a 'double bind'. Apart from tenuous historical evidence, this bind is mostly for epistemic reasons, spatially shifting and variable in the progress of time. The contention is however that this relations hip - let us call it provisionally the 'topological au­thor-critic interdigitation' - has a discursive manifestation. Topologically speaking (cf. R. Thom; J. Petitot-Cocorda; E. C. Zeeman, etc.), this would in­volve, following W. Wild gen (1982, 27 ff.), the bifurcations of "goal-oriented" correlative praxis. The latter is to be understood as a process which lends itself to a presentation in the form of graphs. They may be read as a vectorized doing of two "possessors" who are handling a textual affair. Of course, in a more specialized context of discussion the graph formulae would be subject to a mathematical (geometric-topological) interpretation. In principle this interac­tive 'praxis' pertains on the one hand to an irreversible and on the other to a reversible process of meaning production. Functional rather than ideational, these modes of signification unfold in terms of semantic catastrophes: in respect to the author through the "processes of possession (taking, having, giving)" , and correspondingly as regards the critic through the "(processes) of dominance and control (capture, release)" (Wild gen 1982, 29). Thus author and critic, their asymmetric cultural self-awareness notwithstanding, like Scarron and both his contemporary and his present-day critic, are de facto agents partaking in, the morphogenesis of INTERTEXTUALITY.

Yet, this -does not completely account for the catastrophic semantic features of a potentially subversive, inversive or reversive conflict concerning the inter tex-

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 dispröportionally 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)

Within the limits of the topological perspective sketched earlier, it could be argued with some force that, in this very context, Scarron' s transcoding averse from Vergil constitutes a figuritivised quality change. Notice also the narrator's ironie implicature through the process of topicalization:

Et la Discorde, dont les crins, Qui lui vont jusque sur les reins, Sont des couleuvres venimeuses A considerer tres-affreuses. (ibid.)

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 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 a la 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 DorfmüIler-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 INTER­

TEXT 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

~, The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 69 .

boundaries; macro- and microstructural hierarchies; ideological and axiol~gical hegemonies; etc. (cf. Ruprecht 1977, 198~, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1~86). The mter­connectedness of these issues could easl1y be demonstrated m respect to a privileged field of intertextual researc~: Mozarabic (Hispano-Arabic, ~ispan~­Hebraic) lyrical poetry (zagal, muw~ssah) ~f.the 11th and 12t~ centunes ~~) m point of its relationship to th.e canomcal wntmgs of the ~gypuan I~n Sana a~­Mulk (1155-1211), (b) as to ItS formal connectedness wlth the medleval (Gah­cian-Portuguese) cantigas de amigo of the late 12th and the 13th or l~th c~n­turies and (c) as regards its debatable impact upon the themes and dlscurslve devic~s of the troubadours (Proven~al lyric, 1100 -13 50 ) (cf. Heger 1960;

Axhausen 1974). f Wh at the preceding implies in point of fact is that the NOTI~N 0 INTERTEX~U-

ALITY appears of no or little heuristic avail, if one searches mto the ~mergmg com lexit of such fields of migrating forms of cor:~ent an.d express~0n.' ~nd whaf abo-!t the evolving problems of mono- vs. mululmguahsm, of aSSlmllatlo~ and language-change? On doser inspection one would als~ have t~ sort out a~ to conceptualize as rigorously as possible the homomorphlc mappmgs of basl~­all unstable writing systems upon each other. 'Writing' should be. seen ~n t e o!e hand as the graphematics of transmission, and, ge~erally Speakl?g, wlth~~t reference to the above example, this means the muluf.o~mlty of plctograp lC, 10 0 ra hic syllabic and alphabetic 'scriptures'. 'Wntmg~ should be ~nder­st~o~ o~ th~ other hand as 'scribal practice', that is, .the habttus (~. Bo~rdleu). of copying transcribing, inscribing, editing, etc., con~lsten~ or parually m :eepm

g

with the' patterns of cultural productivity. (For a dlSCUSSlOn of Mozara lC prac-

tice, see Heger 1960.) . d l' ('h Thus, if G. Genette's (1982) assumptionof ap~ltmp~est~n er ymg . ~p'0tex-

tually'), and/or superseding ('hypertextually') hIS ?O~lOn transtext~al;~e were to be further sustained, the inherent problems of ecnture - stochas~lca Y a var­iant of the 'writable' and the 'readable' (Barth~s 1953), and theoreucally at var­iance with "the graphics of differance" (Dernda 1983, 41) - would haIe .to be reconsidered. Quite frankly, the enquiry needs to be refoc~sed not o~ y m re­spect of the rather narrow structuralist vs. poststructurahst perspectlVes, but

even more so in view of its cross-cultural relevance. f f For the present purpose it should suffice to mentio~ a more r~cent or~ 0

'scriptural' and 'transtextual' complexity: the electrom~ networking of mlcr~­soft literary magazines such as SWIFT CURRENT edtted by F~ank Davey m Canada. These thought-provoking developments make one. dublOUS ~bou~ t.he decidability of the time factor and its variables as they pertam to th:lhlst~n~lty of the litterae humaniores. What can one reliably assert abou~ t~le . ux 0 ~ ec­tronically coded figures (eticl emic) of an intertext~al producUvlty m the flelds of culture today? (What should one single ?ut at thlS very mo.men~ U anua~ 22J 1989]

which is marked, symbolically speaking, by two events. the Jo~rneYd~He~ " h / d'H ' ""Enlgme It-

of Salvador Dali whose paintings, e.g., Apot eose.. 0rr;ere, " .' ler", "Apotheose du dollar" , etc., illustrate a speclftcally modern plctonal m-

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 Fließgleichgewicht (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.

4. The Logic of Reconstruction: A Tautology?

I

Ever since the NOTIONS of "intertexte" and "intertextualite" were first formu-lated by J. Kristeva (1969) -"to say nothing of her epexegetical comments on M. M. Bakhtin's discursive polyphony (cf. Todorov 1981; Segre 1988) - the "In­tertextualitätsdebatte" (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

The Reconstruction of Imertextuality 71

literary system. This complementarity consolidates and widens a non-reductive. focus on both the biosphere and the anthroposphere. Within the latter, and in particular as to the cultural activity of an intertextual productivity (in contrast to what J. Kristeva thought), this means the mutual complementing of self-produc­ing and in other ways produced meaning effects. In order to understand this complementarity one has to take in an implied 'principle of uncertainty', and, on our side, a metasystemic tautology. It should be kept in mind that both lay bare a problematical, discipline related uncertainty concerning the propositional con­tents (textual 'objects', 'methods' and 'theories') of literary studies. Intuitionally speaking (in Kant's sense), there is some evidence to believe that we are, as humanists, acquainted with p = textology (theory), q = text (object(s» and r = textual criticism (method(s»; and this is, quite obviously, the case within a metasystemic scope "[ ]" of description. The description can be analyzed, logi­cally following W. Marciszewski (1981, 111,337), in terms of an associativity of conjunction. Hence, this bracketed tautological formalism where the symbol "&" stands for the conjunction and "( )" for a systemic and/or dynamic rela­tional structure:

[p & (q & r) == (p & q) & r]

In the concrete setting of a given research situation this tautology would mean that we seem to know how to cope, for instance, with the demands of (i) the textological reconstruction of European affinita culturale throughout the Re­naissance, (ii) the textual identification of Petrarchism, and (iii) the transtextual approach to a variant such as the religious Petrarchan discourse of Friedrich Spee (1591-1635) and Angelus Silesius (1624-1677) in Germany. This research situation, which is defined by the degree of involvement and by the limits of competence of any scholar, constitutes on its own ground (INTERTEXTUALITY) a specific "system-apparatus-observer complex" (Bunge 1967, 51). In any event, this line of thought would go along with recent perspectives on "scientific real­ism" in literary studies (cf. Livingston 1988, 80-11 0).

Regardless of whether a literary system can be construed, systemically, on the analogy of a living system (see Bunge 1967, 68, cautioning ab out the "double­edged" tool of analogical reasoning in science), one is now inclined, I should suggest, to see the epistemic relevance of the 'new alliance' (Prigogine & Sten­gers 1979) to the problems (MEDIUM and PROCESS) of INTERTEXTUALIZATION. In fact, this correlativism of "Process + Medium, in systemic terms" presupposes, following M. A. K. Halliday (1988, 144-145) with reference to the 'new al­liance', "a metastable, multi-level ('metaredundant') system - that is, a human semiotic".

Semiotically speaking, broadly, but not only ... in terms of the Paris school (cf. Greimas & Courtes 1982), the MEDIUM (material, lingual, etc., purport) and the PROCESS (generative trajectory of discourse ) which enhance the evolving complexity· of any INTERTEXTUALIZATION (CAUSINGstate / DOINGaction =

'to intertextualize') do in fact involve two distributional programs. Both are

72 H.-G. Ruprecht

meaning productive, albeit with obvious redundancies (information/entropy). These pro grams can be summarized as follows:

- Transitive + causative, i.e., the desemantization/resemantization of at least one intertextualformant (PATIENT) by the addresserladdressee (AGENT);

- Intransitive + mutative, i.e., the display of semantic investments proper to more than one intertextual functive (PATIENT), virtually subjected to a cog­nitive, descriptive and interpretive ACT.

(For a discussion and the definition of Hjelmselv's concepts formant and func­tive in respect to intertextuality, see Ruprecht 1981; 1986. As to the 'lexicase' grammatical terms [C.}. Fillmore; M. A. K. HallidayJ, see Starosta 1988).

It may now be suggested that the driving force behind these disorderly inter­twined programs is, among other 'drives' (Nietzsche, Freud, Sartre), the forcel weakness of MEMORY. Dissolutely engaged in the seizure and in the pleasure (R. Barthes) of texts, the mnemonical, be it natural or artificial, is in fact a universal principle of textual organization (cf. Grivel 1978; Ruprecht 1989). Ev~ryone who is acquainted with the occidental tradition of the metaphora memorzae (cf. Weinrich 1976,291-294), that is, the 'wax tablet' (Plato), the 'store-room' (Samt Augustine), etc., will not be misled by our suggestion. Mythical, poetic and transcendental ideas have no place here. This applies as weIl to Yeats's "sudden conviction that our little memories are but apart of some great Memory that renews the world and men's thoughts age after age" (1961, 79). (For references and a discussion of 'poetic memory', see Ruprecht 1975.) What should be brought into focus, however, is the neurosemiotic hypothe.sis (c~. Bo~issac 1985): the ways in which the causal consistencies and the mutatwnal mconststen­cies of the PRO GRAMS of INTERTEXTUALIZATION associate (functionally? inter­derivably? inversely?) with the short-term/long-term systematic tensions of MEMORY. 'Chance and necessity' (cf. Monod 1970), that is, the "hasard capte, conserve, reproduit par la machinerie de l'invariance et ainsi converti en ordre, regle, necessite" (Monod 1988, 44) - what does this mean in relation to INTER­TEXTUAL ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY? Does this relate to the possibility of construct­ing an 'artificial' model powerful enough to locate the intertextual formants and functives, for instance, of European Petrarchism (poets, critics and experts) by 'content' rather than 'addresses'?

If one were to pursue this problematic, it would seem appropriate (cf. Prigogine & Lefever 1975; Zeleny 1981) to reexamine the bifu:c~tin~ progra~s of INTERTEXTUALITY in conjunction with the multistable and dlSSlpatlVe conflg­urations of 'the literary', that is, really, "in memorie and alyve" (Chaucer). Be­sides, this might eventually contribute to the debunking of what is still being considered, in certain quarters here and there, as 'the issue': structuralism vs. poststructuralism. Since new paradigms, cognitive and others, are currently be­ing developed in the fields of literary studies, the (post)structuralist issue doesn't have to be unduly pondered; but it may be worthwhile to make short work of some of its implications, thereby putting new emphasis on the diastructural

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 73

trajectory of mental processes, including the mnemonical spreading activation (cf. Anderson 1983). As far as INTERTEXTUALIZATION is concerned, this would imply the conceiving of a dynamic network whose "driving force" (Prigogine & Lefever 1975, 51) is indeed the self-regulatory, equifinal many-to-one process of MEMORY/OBLIVION (the latter not necessarily in Lacan's sense). In the light of what has been suggested, the following schematization (figure adapted from Prigogine & Lefever) is certainly not indicative of a research protocol but of a research proposal.

Figure

~ TEXTS in a dynamic state of non-equilibrium ~

MEMORY /OBLIVION of textual {eti~} formants ~ emlC

autopoiesis + referential dissipation ~

. b'l' {macro} d' I [

msta Ilty + new . la-textua structures ~ ~ mlcro

allopoiesis + increasing dissipation: "intertexts" ~

~ 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 [interdiscur­sively J the basic rule of reconstruction as he puts it: "The origin of life [intertex­tuality J 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.

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, Käte

1974 Die Theorien über 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 Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: 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 Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. Bern/München: 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'." Recher­

ches Semiotiques 1 Semiotic Inquiry 7, 73-87. Dorfmüller-Karpusa, Käthi

1981 "Kavafis K. P. 'MI~H QP A': Eine intensionalsemantische Analyse." In K. Dorf­müller-Karpusa & J. S. Petöfi, 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/Lon­

don: Indiana UP. 1988 "On Truth: A Fiction." In U. Eco, et aL, eds. Meaning and Mental Representations.

Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana Up, 41-60.

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 75

Eigen, Manfred 1975 "Evolutionary Games." In I. R. Miller, ed. Stability and Origin of Biological Infor­

mation: 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 1986 "Pluralisms and Subjectivities." In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder, eds. Metatheory in

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

1978 "Les universaux de texte." Litterature 30, 25-50. 1982 "Theses preparatoires sur les intertextes. " In R. Lachmann, ed. Dialogizität. Mün­

chen: 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 1960

Hirst, Graem 1987

Die bisher veröffentlichten Hargas und ihre Deutungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (orig. 1937).

Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity. Cambridge/London/New York: Cambridge UP.

J acques, Francis 1987 "Le moment du texte." In Jean Greisch, ed. Le texte comme objet philosophique.

Philosophie 12, Institut catholique de Paris. Paris: Beauchesne, 15-85. Koritz, Lester S.

1977 Scarron satirique. Introd.G. Mongredien. Paris: Klincksieck. Kristeva, Julia

1969 "Le mot, le dialogue et le roman." Semeiotike: Recherches pour une semanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 143-173.

Labarriere, Pierre-J ean 1987 "Textes surTexte: Ou comment (le) taire?" InJean Greisch, ed. Le texte comme objet

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 of Science. Ithaca/Lon­

don: Cornell UP. Marciszewski; Witold, ed.

1981 Dictionary o[ Logic As Applied in the Study of Language. The Hague/Boston/Lon­don: Nijhoff.

11 'I

\

76 H.-G. Ruprecht

Merrell, Floyd 1985 A Semiotic Theory ofTexts. Approaches to Semiotics, 70. Berlin/N ew Yorkl Amster­

dam: 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:

1985

1986

Quelle & Meyer (2nd ed. 1979). "Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In U. Broich & M. Pfister, eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 78-98. "The Poetics of Quotation." Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis: 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 of Analysis: Problems in Truth, Meaning, and Culture.lthaca/Lon-

don: 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 Compara­

1977

1980

1981

1983 1985

tive Literature, 2, 97-110. "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. Heyndels, ed. Litterature. Enseignement. Socihe. Bruxelles: Editions de l'Universite de Bruxelles, 366-394. "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. "Comparatisme et connaissance: Hypotheses semiotiques sur la litterature com­paree." In H. Parret & H.-G. Ruprecht, eds. Aims and Prospects of Semiotics: Essays

1986 1989

The Reconstruction of Intertextuality 77

in Honor of Algirdas Julien Greimas. Vol.1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benja­mins, 307-324. "Intertextualite." In Greimas & Courtes (1986), II, 119-122. "Conjectures et inferences: Les universaux de la litter~ture.» In M. J\nge~ot? et al., eds. Theorie litteraire: problemes et perspectives. Pans: Presses Umversltalres de France, 61-77 ..

Sartre, J ean-Paul 1940 L'imaginaire. Paris: NRF Gallimard.

Scarron, Paul 1858 Le Virgile Travesti en vers burlesques. Ed. V. Fournel. Paris: Delahays. 1955 Le roman comique. Ed. E. Magne. Paris: Garnier Freres.

Schiffer, Stephen R. . . 1982 "Intention-based Semantics." Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logtc 23, 119-156.

Schmeling, Manfred .. 1988 "Prometheus in Paris: Komparatistische Uberlegungen zum Ertrag der Intertex­

tualitätsdebatte am Beispiel Andre Gides." Arcadia 23,149-165. Segre, Cesare [in collaboration with T. Kemeny] . .

1988 Introduction to the Analysis of the Literary Text. Bloommgton/London: Indlana UP.

Somville, Leon 1987 "Intertextualite." In Maurice Delcroix & Fernand Hallyn, eds. M hhodes du texte:

Introduction aux etudes litteraires. Paris: Duculot, 113-131. Starosta, Stanley ..

1988 The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lextcase Grammattcal Theory. New Yorkl London: Pinter.

Todorov, Tzvetan , . . ' 1981 Mikhail Bakhtine, le principe dialogique, suivi de Ecrtts du Cercle de Bakhtzne. Pans:

Seuil. de Toro, Fernando . ,.

1987 Dei texto a la puesta en escena: Ensayos de semiologia teatral: Teorza y practtca. Buenos Aires: Galerna.

1988 "Toward a Socio-semiotics of the Theatre." Semiotica 72, 37-70. Vergil

1977 P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos: Liber Sextus. Ed. R. G. Austin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Weinrich, Harald 1976 Sprache in Texten. Stuttgart: Klett.

Wildgen, Wolfgang ..., , . 1982 Catastrophe Theoretic Semanttcs: An Appltcatwn of Rene Thom s Theorzes. Amster-

dam/Philadelphia: J ohn Benjamins. Yeats, William Butler .

1961 "The Philosophy of Shelley's Poetry." Essays and Introductions. London/Basmg­stoke: Macmillan, 65-95.

Zeleny, Milan, ed. . . 1981 Autopoesis: A Theory of Living Organization. The North Holland Senes m General

Systems Research, 3. New York/Oxford: North Holland. Zilberberg, Claude

1988 Raison et pohique du sens. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

GARY A. PHILLIPS

Sign/Text/Differance

The Contribution of Intertextual Theory to Biblical Criticism

1. The Present Context

Theory is not pursued for its own sake, but only in the passion to remain dose to and hard pressed by what is as such [ ... J. Theory was to be und er­stood (by the Greeks) as itself the highest realiza­tion of genuine practice.

Martin Heidegger

In the field of biblical studies today, a critical understanding of intertextuality provides a strategic means for explaining the nature and function of texts and the critical task. In spite of its established importance in related disciplines, the use­fulness of intertextuality as a conceptual category (cf. e.g. Barthes 1981; LaCapra 1983,25-63) for illumipating various exegetical phenomena, such as textual citation, allusion, allegorical interpretation, typology, rhetorical and dis­course structures, narrative st;ucture, reader-response strategies, canonical and extra-canonical formation, and the like, has not been exploited by biblical ex­egetes in particular or, for that matter, by religionists in generaU The discipli­nary preoccupation with matters related to the signifying processes and function of textual commentary and interpretation that overspread and unite the various subfields of religious studies ought to be sufficient motivation to account for intertextual phenomena in a systematic and structured way. However, except for the work of a small number of exegetes and theologians, there is a conspicu­ous absence of a sustained theoretical reflection upon such matters as intertextu-

1 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.

Sign / Text / Differance 79

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

2 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.

3 This posture is summed up in the remarkably typical statement of one exegete: "Wer nichts von der Sache weiß, der spricht von Methode." (Ringgren 1966, 641)

4 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).

5 This in spite of the etymological significance of theorein as "to see as, to visualize, to gain a perspective. "

6 This is J ean-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

distanciated meaning. This modern problematic has led to a basic division of labor in the field between descriptive (methodologieal) and interpretive (her­meneutical) interests.7 The great German and British historico-critical traditions affiliated with Tübingen and Cambridge have led the way in establishing the methodological agenda for the better part of two centuries: identification of documentary evidence, archeological sourees, rhetorical forms, stages of com­positional development, oral precursors, Sitze im Leben of original authorship and readership, and the like. American exegesis, by contrast, has developed a pragmatic and effective marriage of dose textual reading with certain forms of twentieth century formalist literary and rhetorical criticism indigenous to the North American interpretive scene: the preoccupation with metaphor and para­ble, contemporary rhetoric structuring and, most recently, reader-response mo des of criticism, and more.8 On both sides of the Atlantic, dominant his­torico-critical methodologies and their associated interpretive strategies have combined to shape the present disciplinary discourse and the modern exegetical understanding of the nature of the text, its relationship to context, the function of criticism, and so forth.

Biblical scholarship, and certain forms of theology, of both European and American vintage, confront the modern problematic of the text within a concep­tu al framework characterized fundamentally by a positivist, formalist orienta­tion. 9 This is especially obvious when we look at the major methodological change that occurred in the exegetical field in the decade of the 70's with the emergence of structural methods of analysis. lo While on the surface structuralist biblical exegesis augured a turn in direction away from the traditional under­standing of the critical practice ,as defined in diachronie terms and explicitly towards a structural and synchronie linguistic modeling of the text, in reality its effect was to amplify the prevailing formalist orientation of textual analysis and interpretation.ll There was, in'effect, no paradigm shift, to use Kuhn's terminol­ogy. The modern paradigm, i.e. the conditions for the possibility of thinking

7 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).

8 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."

9 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).

10 "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.

11 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.

Sign / Text / Differance 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 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.

13 Cf. J acqU(!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

structive perspectives on intertextuality offer the biblical exegete an alternative conception of the text and understanding of critical practice in two respects: first, by providing a semiotic model of the text as sign, which can account for the process and trajectory by which text relates to text, text to context, text to reader; and second by providing a perspective upon the epistemic and ontological status of historical modes of thinking as such, which forces open the question of the grounding of critical questions, analytic methods, interpretive frameworks and the search for determinative meanings altogether.

The theoretical effort, therefore, has the salutary effect of situating the biblical critic in a wholly different dynamic relationship to text and to the critical task. No longer satisfied with the givenness of the modern question, the critic be­comes acutely self-conscious of the constraining character of each and every critical reading and of the presuppositions which inform his/her questioning in the first place. Far from being a diversion from critical thinking, either ab out the sacred texts or the longstanding traditions of interpretation, the theoretical ef­fort to think the intertextual question along semiotic and deconstructive lines becomes itself a praxical act with important consequences for invigorating both text and criticism. It does so by drawing attention to the way modern methodological and foundational concerns have been framed and how they drive the modern effort to master the text and determine its meaning.

This essay, therefore, is a theoretical gesture intended to contribute to the practical need for structured, systemic reflection upon intertextual phenomena in biblical texts. The aim is to frame the intertextual question in structural terms using semiotic and deconstructive resources: first, by using C. S. Peirce's semi­otic model to propose an operatiye definition of intertextuality as an indefatig­able process of semiosis, and thus a means for modeling the relationship of text to text, text to context, text to reader in a way that does not resort to reductive psychological, behaviorist or historicist explanations; and second by using Der­rida's notion of differance as a strategy for thinking the question of the founda­tional relationship between text and text, text and context, text and reader as one of difference and differentiation, and thereby to look at what grounds the mod­ern biblical critical distinction between description and interpretation in the first place. For purposes of illustration, we will briefly refer to an interesting dis­course/parable/narrative text identified as the Good Samaritan pericopae 10-cated in the Gospel of Luke (10 :25 -37). By framing a reading of Luke in semiotic and deconstructive terms, we can illustrate the way a sustained reflection upon intertextuality not only opens up this particular biblical text to a different read­ing but also demonstrates the importance of contemporary theoretical reflection for disclosing the underpinnings of modern exegetical praxis.

Sign I Text I Differance 83

2. Semiosis, Interpretant, and the Intertextual Trajectory

[ ... ] the word or sign which man uses is man him­self [ ... ] the fact that every thought is a sign, taken in conjunction with the fact that life is a train of thought, proves that man is a sign. 14

C. S. Peirce 1931-1958, 5.314

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~~ = ==? /Interpretant1/Sign2

--- \ /

Object1 \ / ••• etc.

\ / V

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 Henceforth all references will be by volume and paragraph number. 15 Portions of this argument are drawn from and are more amply detailed in Phillips 1986. 16 According to Peirce: "A Sign or Representament is a First which stands in a genuine triadic

relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpret­ant, to assure the same triadic relation to its Object which it stands itself to the same Object" (2.2274).

17 Since the sign is "anything which is related to a Second thing, its Object, in respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing, its Interpretant, into relation to the same object, and that in such a way as to bring a Fourth into relation to that object in the same form, ad infinitum" (2.292), the sign is ever situated in a continuous, unfolding process by which sign is bound up with sign in view of some rule or habit. Cf. I van Almeida 1976; Phillips 1982.

84 G. A. Phillips

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:

Text'

} - ~--;'~d - :: -,. I Interpretant'/Text' \-- -- / --------\ /

Object' \ / ... etc. \ / \,/

In terpretan f ITexe

Fig.2

Text-understood-as-sign translates into another text/sign in view of some ground by which the new text/sign provides a more developed meaning. The

'8 "Consciousness does not constitute the semiotic process. Consciousness is not a synthesizer but apart of a more comprehensive system." (Liszka 1981, 55)

1

Sign / Text / Differance 85

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~slata­bility 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~pass­ing 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, s.:. 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~n­ciative 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

r 86 G. A. Phillips

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.

3. Gospellntertextuality: Parable, Citation, Narrative, Reader as Interpretants

Turning to J esus' parable of the Good Samaritan, we can briefly illustrate the phenomenon of text and reader as interpretant in a particular intertextual pro­cess. We will not discuss the parable per se (cf. Patte 1974; Crossan 1974); rather, we will concentrate on the intertextual relations hip of the parabolic text (vv. 30-35), which stands in relationship to the citation of the Deuteronomic love command, Dt. 6:5, (v. 27) as well as to the controversy dialogue betweenJesus and a lawyer (vv. 25-38). The Lukan text in translation is as followS19

:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put hirn to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternallife?" He said to hirn, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he answered, "You shalliove the Lord your God with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to hirn, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live. "

But he, desiring to justify hirns elf, said to J esus, "And who is rny neighbor?" J esus replied, "A man was going down frornJerusalern to Jericho, and he fell arnong robbers, who stripped hirn and beat hirn, and departed, leaving hirn half dead. N ow by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw hirn he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he carne to the pi ace and saw hirn, passed by on the other side. But a Sarnaritan, as he journeyed, carne to where he was; and when he saw hirn, he had cornpassion, and went to hirn and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set hirn on his own beast and brought hirn to an inn, and took care of hirn. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave thern to the innkeeper, saying 'Take care of hirn; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I corne back.' Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell arnong the robbers?" He said, "The onewho showedmercy on hirn." AndJesus said to hirn, "Go and do likewise."

In the narrative, J esus is challenged by the lawyer to explain the pragmatic meaning of eternallife (v. 25). Jesus responds to the question with a counter­question that leads the lawyer to answer his own question by citing Dt. 6 :5, "You shalliove the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself" (v. 27). The lawyer's answer is followed immediately by J esus' parenetic imperative, "Do this and you will live" (v. 28 b). In a second movement, the lawyer asks a further ques­tion, namely to define what "neighbor" means again in pragmatic terms (v. 29). Jesus responds with the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan (vv. 30-35), followed by a counter-question put to the lawyer, "who proves to be neighbor in the story?" (v. 36). The lawyer answers his own question again by saying, "the one who showed mercy" (v. 37 a). The narrative ends with Jesus' parenetic ad-

19 In the English translation I rnake use of the Revised Standard Version to supplement rny own translation.

Sign / Text / Differance 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)

Lawyer questions J esus counter-questions I

responds Lawyer responds

J esus responds (imperative)

Fig.3

(knowledge of law) (knowledge of law) (knowledge of Dt. 6:5) (praxis of law)

(knowledge of neighbor) (knowledge of neighbor)

(knowledge of parable) (praxis of neighbor)

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) --.

1 (InterpretantI ISign2

)

Objecf , --)! I "Do this and you will live" J \~ (Dt. 6:5--love God/love neighbor)

(?r~~:1)~ ~ ~ \~blj~C:i:, (Interpretant'/Sign')

life \ / __ \ 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 (Interpretant1) of the

"praxis" (Sign1) 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-

r

I I.

88 G. A. Philüps

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 aSign2 which has as its I nterpretant2

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 Interpretantsa: (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"

Fig.5

"You" (Interpretane)

Lawyer Reader#l Reader#2 ... etc.

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/

Sign / Text / Differance 89

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~lbll­ity. 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.

4. Intertextuality, Differance and the Critical Task

Up to this point we have seen t~at Peirce's s.em~otic model, ~hen ~se? to e~plain intertextual processes, emphaslzes the contmutty betweet;t slgns ~lthm th~ mt~r­textual ;rajectory. This theoretical model p:oves usef~l m ~howmg the nch ~n­tertextual play in a text like Luke's Samantan narratlVe/dls~ourse. In ~urmng now to Derrida's deconstructive reflection upon text and mtertex~u~hty, we find that it is not continuity but discontinuity that is underscored. It IS mte~tex­tuality understood as discontinuity and difference that is the focus of Derr~~a's concern as he addresses the foundational underpinnings of modern .cntlcal thinking. It is this effort to examine foundations of the critical task that is Impor-tant for biblical exegetes.20

•

In his weIl-publicized "Yale Manifesto," Derrida reflects up~n the ?otl0n of borders, those lines of demarcation that constitute the boundanes whlch seem­ingly separate text from extratextual world, text from text, text from reader. He says,

The question of the text, as it has been elaborated and transformed in the l~st doz~n or so yea~~, has not merely 'touched' 'shore,' le bord (scandalously tampering, changm?, as m Mallarme s declaration, 'On a touche au vers'), all those boundaries that for~ th~ ru~nmg border of what used to be called a text of what we once thought this word could Identify, l.e., the supposed end and beginning of a wo;k, the unity of a corpus, the tide, the margins, the signatures, t~e referen­tial realm outside the frame, and so forth. What has happened, if it has happened, lS, a sort of overrun [debordementJ that spoils all these boundaries and division~ and forces us to extend t~e accredited concept, the dominant notion of a 'text,' of what I still call a 'text,' for strategic

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.

r

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.

Sign / Text / Differance 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.

Sign / Text / Differance 93

As for the text itself:

T~e ~terary text is.a plal' of ~extuality, not simply in the obvious sense that a "work" of art always . 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

Sign / Text / Differance 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:

Bal,Mieke 1987

1988

Hermeneutique du discours religieux." Diss. Universite Catholique de Louvain.

Lethai Love: Feminist Literary Readings 0/ Biblical Love Stories. Bloomington: In­diana UP. 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.

Frei, Hans 1974

New York: Pantheon.

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. Cam­

bridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Patte, Daniel

1974 1974

1975

"An Analysis ofNarrative Structure and the Good Samaritan." Semeia 2, 1-26. What Is Structural Exegesis? Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ed. Semiology and Parables: An Exploration o[ the Possibilities O[[ered by Structur­alism [or Exegesis. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, 9. Pittsburgh: Pick-wiek 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 Literaturel American 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.

Sign I Text I Differance 97

Ricoeur, Paul 1971 "What is a Text? Explanation and Interpretation." In David Rasmussen, ed. Mythic­

Symbolic Language and PhilosophicalAnthropology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 135-150.

Riddel, J oseph 1979 "From Heidegger to Derrida to Chance: Doubling and (Poetic) Language." In Wil­

liam Spanos, ed. Martin Heideggerand the Question o[ Literature. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UP.

Ringgren, Helmer 1966 "Literarkritik, Formgeschichte, Überlieferungsgeschichte : Erwägungen zur

Methodenfrage der alttestamentlichen Exegese." Theologische Literaturzeitung 91, 641-650.

Semeia 1985

Semeia "Reader Response Approaches to Biblical and Secular Texts" [special issue J.

1990 "Poststructural Criticism and the Bible: Text/History/Discourse" [special issue J. van Tilborg, Sejf

1986 The Sermon on the Mount as an I deological Intervention: A Reconstruction o[ M ean­ing. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.

11. Structures of Intertextuality

I

I' : I

I

I.

I I

WOLFGANG G. MÜLLER

In terfigurali ty

A Study .on the Interdependence üf Literary Figures

1. I ntroduction

In his surrealistic nüvel Il Visconte dimezzato (The Cloven Viscount, 1952) Ital.o Calvinü teIls the story üf the Italian Viscüunt Medardü whü, having been hit by a cannün ball in the Turkish wars, returns, with ünly üne half üf his büdy pre­served (the right eye, the right ear and sü fürth düwn tü the right leg) to his castle, where his ghastly appearance and his reign üf terrür hürrify all the peüple. This grütesque figure seems tü be absülutely unique, withüut precedent in earlier literature, until in the seventh üf the büük's ten chapters, the secünd half üf the Viscüunt returns, miraculüusly preserved, tü the castle after a lüng pilgrimage, turning .out tü be in all mental and müral respects the .oppüsite üf the first half. After this effectively delayed return everything falls int.o place. The reader realizes that this nüvel belüngs tü the "dualistic Internatiünal" (Miller 1985, 127).It is an .original fictiünal re-fürmulatiün üf the theme üf the divided süul, an ingeniüus variatiün üf such pairs üf figures as Rübert Lüuis Stevensün's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hydein the tale üf that name (1886). What seemed tü be a tütally singular figure at first sight, independent üf üther fictiünal characters and character cünstellatiüns, prüves tü be part üf a netwürk .of relati.onships that exist between literary characters üf different authürs and ages.

The interrelatiüns that exist between characters üf different texts represent üne üf the müst impürtant dimensiüns üf intertextuality, as the füllüwing ran­dümly chüsen titles may indicate: Troilus and Cressida (Shakespeare), The Female Quixote (Lennüx), Grandison der Zweite (Musäus), Faust (Güethe), Don Juan und Faust (Grabbe), Verter (Lazarevic), Ulysses Oüyce), Dr. Faustus (Th. Mann), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (St.oppard), Grendel (Gardner). In view üf the prüminence and impürtance üf such relatiüns it is astünishing hüw little attentiün they have füund sü far in intertextual theüry and criticism. One reasün für this lacuna may be the suspiciün generally felt towards character-üriented studies, character being, as J.onathan Culler has said, re­garded by müdern theüreticians as an "ideülügical prejudice" rather than a re­spectable topic für inquiry (Culler 1975, 230; Jeffersün 1980, 235). T.o übviate such reservatiüns we will, in this study, lüük at character as a strictly structural and functiünal textual element and apply tü it für the müst part the "o/ürd "fig-

102 W. G. Müller

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; Stückrath 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 foundatiön 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.

2. Names as Interfigural Devices

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. Öne 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-

I' I

I

104 W. G. Müller

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 rö­mance 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 Krüger's extension of Hölderlin's Bildungsroman Hyperion (Härtling 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

Interfigurality 105

True History of the Adventures of FannyHaekabout-jones (1980). This name is a combination of the Christian name of the heroine ofJohn Cleland'sFanny HilI and the surname of the hero, Tom Jones, in Fielding's novel of the same name. An extension is effeeted by the insertion of an additional name element, Hack­ab out, which is derived from William Hogarth's Kate Hackabout in The Har­lot's Progress. Addition at the name's beginning and subtraetion at its end oecur in MaeBirdl, Barbara Garson's adaptation of Shakespeare's Maebeth as a politi­cal satire on the sixties in America: Thc name Dunean becomes 0' Dune the added patronymie hinting at the Irish background of the Kennedy family. '

An important device of internymic deviation is substitution. Substitution may range from the phoneme as the smallest linguistic segment to the whole body of the name exeept for one phoneme. If substitution affects the combina­tion of first name and surname, whole words can be substituted too. Instances of minimal substitutions are: HamletlSamlet Geremy Geidt's andJonathan Marks' The Tragieal History of Samlet, Prinee of Denmark ; see Priessnitz 1980, 12) and Macbethl Macbett (Ionesco's Macbett). In the latter example, like in the two­letter subtraction Malcolml Maeol from the same play, the English names are adapted to Freneh ears. A tiny change which may be interpreted as a substitu­tion, too, is OthellolO'Thello in a distinctly Irish parody of Shakespeare's play (General O'Thello or, The Wipe and the Wiper, 1869; see Priessnitz 1980,307). The initial vowel of the name of Shakespeare's charaeter is replaced by the Irish patronymic 0'. One could also define this transformation as a kind of deglutina­tion of the name's initial sound.

There are plenty of more extensive substitutions, too. In Henry Fielding's Shamela the name of Riehardson's heroine is parodied by the substitution of the free morpheme sham (= imposture, pretence, mock) for the root of the name Pamela. Similar transformations are Maebethl MaeBird (Barbara Garson, Mae­Bird/); Macbethl MaeBarsh (Dietrich Schwanitz' satire on the Barschel Affair in Kiel); RosencrantzlEhrliehcrantz, GuildensternlHaldenstern (Geidt's and Marks' already-mentioned Watergate play). T. S. Eliot's "Aristophanic melo­drama" Sweeney Agonistes changes the name of the hero of Milton's drama Samson Agonistes into Sweeney. Here the irony of the internymie deviation is perceptible only within the context of the titles of the works related intertextu­ally (Plett 1986,310).

Another form of internymic transformation is the adaptation of foreign names to their new context. Thus Don j uan Tenorio is Anglicized in Shaw' s Man and Superman intojohn Tanner. So strong is the deformation of the origi­nal name in this case that the spectator or reader would hardly grasp it, if John Tanner did not appear in the play's central dream-scene under the name of his ancestor Don Juan. A similar adaptation is the change ofAgamemnon into Ezra Mannon in Eugene O'Neill's Mourning Beeomes Eleetra. Another possibility is the translation of the foreign name into the target language, as is the case with Johannes Faust transferred asjohn Fist into the American undergraduate milieu of the sixties Gohn Hersey, Too Far to Walk, 1966).

106 W. G. Müller

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~r­rator 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~ apos­trophizes hirnself by his name several times - :'1 was G:endel, Rumer of 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 ~efer­ence 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 Faustusl Adrian Leverkühn (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

Interfigurality 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 gäb alle Clementi­nen und Henrietten um eine Julie hin." (Musäus 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).

3. Literary Revenants: Re-Used Figures

Let us begin our survey of some forms of interfigurality with an extreme type, which raises several fundamental issues. This type of interfigurality emerges whenever a literary figure is extricated from its original fictional context and inserted into a new fictional context. In a seminal article, to which all future studies on this subject will be indebted, Theodore Ziolkowski coined the term "figures on loan" ("Figuren auf Pump" in an earlier article written in German) for this phenomenon (Ziolkowski 1983), a coinage which is a litde misleading since it suggests, first, that a figure is borrowed from its source to be returned to the source again, and, second, that there is an identity of the original figure and the figure transplanted into a new context.

Ontologically and aesthetically, it is, however, impossible to have entirely identical characters in literary works by different authors. For if we do not simplistically regard a fictional character as a mere sum of qualities (character traits), but, rather, understand it as a constituent of an artistic whole, related to a plot and part of a constellation of characters, we realize that it cannot reappear in its identical form in another author's work. That is why here the term "re-used figure" is preferred to "figure on loan" or "borrowed figure". Complete interfi­gural identity is unattainable. A similar problem, that of intertextual identity, is raised in Borges' story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", which deals with the project of producing in the twentieth century "a few pages which would coincide - word for word and line for line - with those of Miguel de Cervantes" (Borges 1981,66).

We speak of "re-used figures" in order to indicate that if an author takes over a figure from a work by another author into his own work, he absorbs it into the formal and ideological structure of his own product, putting it to his own uses, which may range from parody and satire to a fundamental revaluation or re­exploration of the figure concerned. With regard to two of his chief examples of

108 W. G. Müller

"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

~hamela ~s an ov.ert parody of a literary figure, his Pamela is a covert parody of a ~lt~r~ry f~gure. Smce the parodic element is not as explicit in Fielding's Pamela as lt IS m hIS Shamela and since his Pamela is so introduced and delineated as to create the impression of her having been directly taken over from a novel by a.nother author, we can here speak of a literary revenant, even though the iden­tlty of model and replica is only apparent.

The problem of the ontological status of literary revenants, the question whether or not figures from earlier works re-emerging in later works are identi­cal with their originals, may seem to have been laboured here, but it is essential to J:7ealize that such figures are more than mere duplicates and that they are ma~ked by a characteristic tension between similarity and dissimilarity with theu models from the pre-texts. An instructive text is in this regard Walter de la Mar~'s Henry Brocken (1904), whose hero travels through the land of romance ?n hl~ horse Rosinante, meeting various figures from the literary tradition which m:ana?ly puzzle or trouble hirn since they deviate more or less from his precon­celVed Image of them. Thus he encounters a little girl who bears the name of one of Wordsworth's figures, Lucy Gray, and seems to be identical with her to all appearances, but does not know or remember her story as told in Wordsworth's poem. On Henry Brocken's reminding her of it, she answers, "That will be a long time since" (de la Mare 1904,21).

The conversation with Jane Eyre in the book's second episode raises almost ontological problems:

"And am I indeed only like that poor mad thing you thoughtJane Eyre?" she said, "or did you read between?"

I answered that it was not her words, not even her thoughts, not even her poetry that was to me Jane Eyre.

" "Wh.at then is left of me?" sh~ inquired, stooping her eyes over the keys and smiling daddy. Am I mdeed so evanescent, a wmtry wraith?"

"WeIl," I said, "Jane Eyre is left."

She pressed her lips together. "I see," she said brightly. "But then, was I not detestable too? so stubborn, so wilful, so demented, so -vain?"

"You were vain," I answered [ ... ]

(de la Mare 1904, 36)

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", "st bb "" ·lf 1" "d d""·" b h . 1 h f u orr~, Wl u, emente , vam -, ut t e essenua c aracter 0 J ane 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. Müller

4. Re-Used Figures in Allographie Sequels

A domain of literature in which figures from other works reappear by definition is the large field of re-writes and sequels to earlier texts. Two basic types of sequels have to be distinguished, those written by the author of the pre-text hirns elf (called autographie sequels here) and those written by another author (allographie sequels). We will first deal with the second type. Sequels are usually interfigural, centred round one or more figures from their pre-texts. thus, to mention just a few types, minor figures can become main figures in the subse­quent text (Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead), or the antago­nist can be turned into the protagonist Qohn Gardner, Grendel). A sequel may present aperiod in a character's life anterior to that of the pre-text (Gordon Bottomley, King Lear's Wife [1915], Gruaeh [1919], the latter dealing with the antecedents of the life of Lady Macbeth) or posterior (Anna L'Estrange, Return to Wuthering H eights, Ariost, Orlando furioso [sequel to Boiardo, Orlando amoroso ], La Segunda parte dei Lazarillo de Tormes), or it may fill a gap the pre­text leaves in the representation of a character's history (Fenelon, Les aventures de Telemaque, Jeffrey Caine, Heathcliff). These three types of sequels can be associated with the terms analepsis, prolepsis, and ellipsis (Genette 1982, 197-198).

As was said above, the re-emergence of one or more figures from the pre-text is one characteristic feature of sequels. Sequels are characterized by an intersec­tion (or at least a contiguity) of two different fictional contexts which manifests itself most conspicuously on the figural level. But here again it would be wrong to take for granted an identity of the figures from the pre-text with the corre­sponding figures in the subseque~t text, even though they may bear the same names. Like other intertextual phenomena figures re-used in sequels follow their literary ancestors and simultaneously deviate from them. An interesting example is in this context J ean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea (1966), a sequel to Char­lotte Bronte'sJane Eyre (1847). A simplistic view of the relation between these two texts would see the posterior text as a supplement to the anterior text pro­viding the antecedents of the relationship between Rochester and his first wife. In actual fact, Wide Sargasso Sea is, though intertextually related to J ane Eyre, an independent artistic creation, which manifests itself, among other things, in the change of the setting from England to J amaica, the conversion of a shadowy minor figure, the mad Creole prisoner-wife in the attic, Bertha Mason, into the protagonist, Antoinette Cosway, and the shift of the narrative perspective from the conventional I -narration of J ane Eyre - who does not figure in Rhys' novel at all- to the modern figural I-narration of Antoinette and her husband (Roches­ter). There is no room for a detailed analysis here, but some interfigural aspects must be mentioned, particularly Rhys' handling of the names of her figures. The first thing to be no ted - a detail generally overlooked in criticism - is the fact that the male protagonist remains nameless in the novel. Critics usually refer to hirn by his surname (Rochester) or his first name (Edward) inJane Eyre. This is, of

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

I,

I I I

112 W. G. Müller

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.

5. Re-used Figures in Autographie Sequels and Series

It seems to be obvious that figures from an earlier work by an author that reap­pear in a later work by the same author are identical. But even when the subse­quent text comes from the same pen as the pre-text, things may be more complex and problematic than it seems at first sight. There are instances of complete identity, of course, especially in the stereotyped heroes of popular literature. The Sherlock Holmes of Conan Doyle's detective stories remains the same all through the series. Even when Doyle, siek of his hero, plunged hirn over the Reichenbach Falls at the end of his second collection, he continued to be haunted by hirn. Public demand and enormous financial offers made hirn resus­citate his detective, who was, of cpurse, expected to be entirely the same person he had been in the first two collections.

Consistency of character ~arks novel sequences, too, like James Fenimore Cooper's Leather-Stoeking Tales, in which the hero, Natty Bumppo, functions as the unifying figural link. Or in sequences of novels delineating the fate of a family or a group of families over several generations such asJohn Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga the family is the multifigurallink that provides the coherence of the narrative. The situation is somewhat different in William Faulkner's Yok­napatawpha County novels. Here identical families, notably the Compson fam­ily, emerge in several works of the series, but the great variety of Faulkner's techniques of narrative mediation, the subtleties in viewpoint and the temporal shifts in his narration differ strongly form the linear unfolding of the stories of the individual figures in their temporal progression in The Forsyte Saga. But nevertheless interfigural relations form a bond in Faulkner's novels that, in addi­tion to the mythical region in which they are set, contribute to unifying the senes.

Recurring figures form a connecting link, too, in Honore de Balzac's large­scale cycle of novels and tales in La Comedie humaine, for instance the criminal Vautrin (Pere Goriot, Illusions perdues, Splendeurs et miseres des eourtisanes). Several twentieth century novelists have a predilection for using the same hero in

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 oi Robinson 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. Müller

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.

6. Inter[igural Combinations and Contaminations

A domain in which interfigurality is frequently to be observed is the grouping of the characters or configuration, as it will be termed here. Figures from different literary works can be brought together in a new fictional context, or a constella­tion of characters (configuration) from one or more pre-texts can be changed or even inverted in the subsequent text. A very obvious example of a new config­uration as a result of bringing together figures from different works or traditions is Christian Dietrich Grabbe's Don Juan und Faust, a play which polarizes its eponymous heroes, who, with equal intensity, strive for the same concrete aim, the possession of Anna, but who in their ultimate objective are sharply distin­guished. Faust seeks in love also the absolute, whereas Don Juan's pursuit of love is an emanation of his unbounded vitality and freedom which leads hirn from one woman to another. ..

The two plots of Grabbe's play alternate and intersect without joining except through Anna as the bone of contention (Genette 1982, 303). But the essential thing is the play's new configuration, which counterpoints two life­philosophies that are embodied in two figures from different literary works. A similar example at another level would be Maurice Leblanc's collection of detec­tive stories Arsene Lupin contre Herlock Sholmes, which, in the burglar-hero Arsene Lupin, an ingenious master of disguises and roguish inventiveness, and Conan Doyle's English detective Sherlock Holmes, the methodical observer and deductionist, juxtaposes two contrasting cultural myths. The parodic nature of this pairing is indicated by internymic devices: The French hero's name is derived from Poe's detective Auguste Dupin, and the name Herlock Sholmes is the result of the transposition of the initial phonemes of the first name and the surname of the English detective. An extreme example of re-using figures from other works is Charles George's play When Shakespeare's Gentlemen Get To­gether, a burlesque which assembles several characters from various plays by Shakespeare, Romeo, Othello, Antony, and Hamlet, who all ask for money from Shylock, reciting their most famous soliloquies to emphasize their demand (Priessnitz 1980, 14).

Interfigurali ty 115

A contamination of t~o distinct literary figures is effected in Kierkegaard's Diary of the Seducer, an intertextual phenomenon marked internymically, as was explained above. The seducer's first name Johannes relates hirn to Johannes Faust and Don Juan. It would, of course, be simplistic to define Kierkegaard's protagonist as an amalgamation of Goethe's and Mozart's characters, even though he could, without these two models, never have been created in this form. While the combination of two different literary figures in one person is extremely subtle and intricate in The Diary of the Seducer, it is quite obvious in Alphonse Daudet's Tartarin de Tarascon, who incarnates at once Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Tartarin has the soul of the Spanish hidalgo and the body of his servant, and his self-debates, in which Tartarin-Sancho and Tartarin­Quichotte exchange voices, are a funny nineteenth-century revival of the medieval allegorical dialogues of the body and the soul.

The configuration of the pre-text can, in the subsequent text, be subjected to various kinds of inversion. In The Female Quixote for example, an eighteenth century imitation of Cervantes' Don Quixote by Charlotte Lennox, the pre­text's pairing of master and servant is replaced by that of mistress and maid. And in a German Cervantes imitation of the same period, Wilhelm Ehrenfried Neugebauer's Der teutsche Don Quichotte, a male and a fern ale Quixote are brought together with their respective servants. Another kind of configurational inversion, which also involves the sex of the figures, occurs in George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman. Here the pairing of Don Juan and a woman as the object of his desire is exchanged for that of seductress and guileless man. Another type of configurational inversion is the already-mentioned exchange of protagonist and antagonist in Gardner's Grendel. The pre-text's configuration is in this book changed in yet another way. The dragon, which in Beowulfhas nothing to do with the story of the hero's slaying of Grendel and his mother, becomes Grendel's mentor in the modern novel. Interesting instances of similar interfigural variations are to be found in several short stories by J oyce Carol Oates which "re-imagine" works of world literature (Herget 1986).

The last type of interfigural variation to be discussed in this context is the superimposition or contamination of different character constellations. A nice example is Graham Greene's Monsignor Quixote, whose intertextual relation to Cervantes' novel is almost excessively emphasized (Broich in Broich/Pfister 1985, 3~9), whereas the novel's connection with Guareschi's Don Camillo and Peppone is so weakly marked that it has virtually escaped notice. But it is impor­tant to realize that Greene superimposes on the master-servant relationship of Cervantes' novel a relationship of socially equal but politically and ideologically contras ted figures. Another example of such a superimposition is Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and GuildensternAre Dead, which turns Shakespeare's pair of minor characters into twin-protagonists. Stoppard superimposes on this pair of figures the Vladimir-Estragon relationship from Beckett's Waiting [or Godot and the persona of Eliot's dramatic monologue The Love Song of J. Alfred Pruf­rock. Such interfigural contaminations contribute essentially to giving Stop­pard's playa distinctly modern character.

116 W. G. Müller

7. Literary Figures I dentifying with or Imitating Other Literary Figures: Quixotism and Related Phenomena

A very large and important field of interfigural relations is constituted by those literary figures that, as a consequence of intense reading experiences, forget the boundary between life and fiction, empathizing so much with the heroes or heroines of the works they have read that they use them as models guiding their own lives and actions, which may lead them into collisions with reality. This kind of interfigural empathy tends to trigger off actions. It is here that interfigur­ality reveals an acute relevance to plot.

The term "reading protagonist" or its German equivalents "der Held als Leser", "der lesende Held", and "Leserfigur" (Wuthenow 1980; Montandon 1982; Goetsch 1983; Stückrath 1984) is not entirely adequate to most of the literary figures in question since they are rarely delineated in the act of reading. Cervantes' Don Quixote and the many works written in its tradition, for in­stance by Fielding, Lennox, Neugebauer, Scott, Flaubert, or Greene, present heroes and heroines whose minds have been shaped and whose actions are deter­mined by their reading, but the reading process is sparsely described.

An example of an identification with literary figures coming ab out in the process of reading is to be found in the story of Paolo Malatesta and Francesca Rimini from Dante's Inferno, Canto 5 (see Pabst 1949). Here the two lovers discover their love and are moved to kiss during the very act of reading a love scene from a medieval romance on Sir Lancelot. In George H. Boker's fine play Francesca da Rimini it is the reading of the encounter of Guenevra and Lancelot, told in libidinous words, that releases the erotic desire in the lovers. Another example of an identification of tw'~ literary figures occurring in the act of reading is provided by The Picture of Dorian Gray, where Wilde's protagonist, reading the "yellow book", interpretsits hero, the young Parisian hedonist, as a "kind of prefiguring type of hirns elf" (Chapter 11), which confirms hirn in his intention to live his life entirely and radically in accordance with his hedonistic principles. A positive example of the identification with a literary hero is Wilhelm Meister's reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet, which contributes essentially to his finding his own identity (Goethe, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre).

To describe the whole range of the ways in which fictional heroes empathize with literary figures from earlier works would require aseparate study. Only a few fundamental categories can be mentioned here, which are to be exemplified by Cervantes' Don Quixote, a veritable store-house of different types of interfigural relations. Intertextuality is realized in Don Quixote largely in the form of interfigurality. The protagonist's enormous knowledge of chivalric romances is fixated on the heroes of those texts, as is drastically illustrated in the scene in which he mistakes two great Hocks of sheep for armies, reeling off the names and descriptions of a great number of imaginary knights (Part I, Chapter 18).

Interfigurality 117

An extreme attitude Don Quixote takes towards the heroes of chivalric romances is total identification (identificatio) as it occurs in Part I, Ch. 5, where he returns, severely battered, from his first expedition, believing hirns elf to be, in one of a sequence of strange delusions, the wounded moor Abindarraez and talking "in the very words and phrases [ ... ] as he had read the story in J orge Montemayor's Diana." Another, and a very frequent, type of conduct of the knight of the sorrowful countenance is the imitation of literary heroes (imitatio), his favourite model being Amadis of Gaul. He says to Sancho Panza that "the knight errant who best copies hirn [Amadis] will obtain most nearly to the per­fection of chivalry" (Part I, Ch. 25). At times he debates with hirns elf which hero to imitate. Thus he once has to decide what is better and nobler for hirn, "to imitate Roland's downright madness or Amadis' melancholy moods." (1,26) A third type of conduct is emulation (aemulatio), the attempt to outdo the heroes of the romances, "to eclipse the most famous deeds they ever performed" (1,20). A fourth type is characterized by invention (inventio), for instance in the imagi­nary description of the chivalric heroes, for which he believes to be qualified by his competence as areader: "'For my absolute faith in the details of their his­tories and my knowledge of their deeds and characters enable me by sound philosophy to deduce their features, their complexions and their stature. ", (11, 1)

Don Quixote uses precedents from the lives of the heroes of the books he has read as a guideline for his own life and actions, regarding those heroes not only as models of strength and courage, but of virtue and ethics, too. Intertextuality manifests itself in Cervantes basically on the interfigural level, Don Quixote constantly and in ever new variations interpreting his life and attempting to shape his conduct in accordance with the actions and ethics of the literary figures he admires.

8. Intratextual Interfigurality: A Postmodern Form of Intertextuality

Interfigurality realized intratextually, i. e. within a text, may seem to be a con­tradiction in terms. But it is an important modern phenomenon which has only a few precedents in earlier literature. Its precise definition is necessary, particu­larly a distinction from the term 'configuration'. Configuration is the constella­tion or grouping of the characters of a fictional text. However, when a literary work combines two or more fictional contexts and relations are established be­tween the characters belonging to the different fictional contexts, a special form of interfigurality can be recognized. An instructive example would be the play­within-a-play. Thomas Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, for instance, repeats in Soliman and Perseda, the play-within-the-play arranged by Hieronimo as a means of effecting his revenge, the configuration of the play proper with a number of significant deviations, thus creating intricate figural interrelations.

What is decisive in The Spanish Tragedy is that in the play-within-the-play a somewhat changed mirror-image of the real situation is presented as a fiction,

118 W. G. Müller

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 (Musäus, 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)

A more concentrated representation of intratextual interfigurality than in this passage is hardly possible. The source of the interfigural relations in The Coun­terlife is twofold. First, Nathan Zuckerman has "a variety of impersonations I can do, and not only of myself - a troupe of players that I have internalized, a permanent company of actors that I call upon when a self is required" (Roth 1988,366-367). He defines hirns elf as "a theater and nothing more than a thea­ter." The second source of interfigurality, which is related to the first one, is Nathan's fictionalization of the persons with whom he has relations. His lover complains of his treating her as material for his art, asking hirn not to write abou t her. He answers, "I can't write 'about' anyone. Even when I try it comes out someone else." (Roth 1988,217). Interfigurality arises in this novel from the multiplying of fictionalized versions of the self and the nonself, which results in an intricate network of figural relations.

Two of the many instances of figural interdependence in The Counterlife involve internymic relations. The two versions the novel presents of N athan' s brother , the bourgeois American dentist and the fanaticized settler in Israel, are distinguished as "Henry of Jersey" and "Hanoch of Judea". And the two non­J ewish women who playa role in the lives of the Zuckerman brothers are called Maria, a fact which Henry attributes to Nathan's predilection for that name­"Nathan called all shiksas Maria" (Roth 1988,260-261) -, while Nathan's part­ner Maria speaks of his "Mariolatry". She ultimately refuses to exist as N athan' s invention under the name of Maria. The identity of the names of the two women must be traced back to the fictionalizing mania ofNathan Zuckerman to which all the novel's characters and character constellations are related. The source for the specific formthat interfigurality assurnes in The Counterlife is what could be called' 'interfictionality', the constant production of new interrelated fictions in Roth' s "narrative factory" , of new versions of the main characters which depend on one another.

120 W. G. Müller

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 Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Nie-

meyer. Broich, Ulrich

1985 "Formen der Markierung von Intertextualität." 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 Erzählkunst." Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift 33, 199-215.

Härtling, Peter, ed.·' . 1971 Leporello fällt aus der Rolle. Zeitgenössische Autoren erzählen das Leben von Ftgu-

ren der Weltliteratur weiter. Frankfurt: S. Fischer. Herget, Winfried .

1986 "Joyce Carol Oates' Re-imaginationen." In Winfried Herget et al., eds. Theone und Praxis im Erzählen des 19. und 20. jahrhunderts. Studien zur englischen und amerikanischen Literatur zu Ehren von Willi Erzgräber. Tübingen: 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 gefährlichen Lesen." Ger-

manisch-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 Clermont-Ferrand. Clermont-Ferrand: Association des Publications de la Faculte des Lettres et

- Sciences Humaines de Clermont-Ferrand. Musäus, 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

Pabst, Walter 1949

1975

Paul, Fritz

Falstaff London: Hamilton.

"Fürst Galeotto oder die Macht der erfundenen Werke." Deutsche Beiträge 3, 168-181. "CVictimes du livre'. Versuch über eine literarische Konstante." In Jose M. Navarra, ed. Filologia y Didactica Hispanica. Homenaje al Professor Hans-Karl Schneider. Hamburg: Buske.

1986 "Kierkegaards Verführer, 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 Inter­

pretandi, 9. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Rhys,Jean

1987 Wide Sargasso Sea. Harmondsworth: Penguin (orig. 1966). Roth, Philip

1988 The Counterlife. New York: Penguin (orig. 1986). Stückrath, J örn

1984 "Der literarische Held als Leser." In Michael Krejci et al., eds. Literatur­Sprache-Unterricht. Festschrift für 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 über Kolloquien der Kommission für literaturwissenschaft­liehe Motiv- und Themenforschung 1983-1985. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup­recht.

Wuthenow, Ralph-Rainer 1980 Im Buch die Bücher oder Der Held als Leser. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Ziolkowski, Theodore 1983 "Figures on Loan." Varieties of Literary Thematics. Princeton: Princeton Up,

123-151.

WOLFGANG KARRER

Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices

Research on tides, especially in literature, has grown to a respectable body of findings du ring the last thirtyyears. And with the studies ofHoek (1981), Rothe (1986) and Genette (1988) - the first two containing exha~stive ~ibliographi~s­it has also reached a theoreticallevel that permits connectIOns with the ongomg debate about intertextuality. Hoekhas even coined the term "intertitularity" for tide-intertextuality, and Genette jokingly refers to the subdiscipline of "titrol­ogy". Mottoes have done less well. Research (Böhm 1975; Segerman~ 1977; Berger 1982) remains mainly tied to the enumerative form-and-functlon ap­proach, also typical of many of the earlier tide studies. This also holds true for the few studies on tides for poems or for chapters in novels.

In this paper I shalllook at only one aspect of tides and ~ottoes, their in~er­textuality, and thus ignore many of the other aspects the studies above deal with. On the other hand, I intend to use tides and mottoes as miniatures to contribute to the more general and far more complex discussion about the intertextualitJ:' of entire texts, genres, or period di~courses. I shall begin with some theoretlcal systematizations, to be follow~d by some social and historical considerations.

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.

Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices 123

Here is a second example. Gf Mice and M en (1937), a story by J ohn Steinbeck, derives its tide from a poem by R. Burns: "The best laid schemes o'mice an' men/Gang aft a-gley/An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain/For promised joy." The parallelism between animals and humans as weIl as the almost proverbial saying apply very weIl to Lennie, George, and their dream of a piece of land. The difference to the tide quote from Sebastian Brant is minimal. In both cases the reader has to supply a context, whether the overall structure or theme or a specific wording completing the quoted element. In both cases there is overcod­ing of the text that follows the tide. And retro-actively the quote in the tide receives its overcoding from the following text. For some readers of Steinbeck's story, even the quoted line, when read in the context of Burns' poem, might have acquired a permanent overcoding. But a twentieth-century reader might also think of Porter when turning to Brant's satire. The difference between a tide quoting another tide and a tide quoting from a text obviously lies somewhere else.

Let us look at a third example: T. S. Eliot prefaces The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock with a Dante motto from Inferno 27, 61-66, without marking or iden­tifying the motto as a quote except by the shift to another language. The motto functions very much like a literal tide quote in overcoding the following text: Prufrock's love song is also a confession, his Boston a modern inferno, he him­self a false counsellor like Count Guido da Montefeltro etc. And re-reading Dante after T. S. Eliot might "uncover" traces of modern despair in Dante's medieval hell. Again, overcoding works both ways. As recent studies have shown (Böhm 1975, 122-130), mottoes for individual chapters behave very much like motto es under tides. The same holds true for quotes embedded in chapter tides. They all subsurne the following text under an element reproduced from an earlier text or tide.

Instead of producing further examples for quotes in chapter tides or chapter mottoes let me draw some tentative first conclusions: Quotes in tides or mot­toes, whether for an entire text or parts of it, follow each other in hierarchical positions. The main difference between a quoting tide and a simple quote occur­ring somewhere in the text consists in the extension of the overcoding: a text tide overcodes the whole text. So does the motto immediately beneath the text tide. Tides and motto es for chapters or parts of a text extend their overcoding over exacdy the part they are assigned to. Their overcoding is switched off by the next following quote on the same hierarchicallevel (cf. Wieckenberg 1969,20). Sim­ple quotes embedded in the current text are overruled by quotes inserted as motto es and tides. The extension of their overcoding remains vague, unless rein­forced or overruled by other quotes in mottoes and tides. It is more fruitful to think of tides and motto es as privileged and hierarchical slots in texts, slots, which can be filled - in the case of tides - or must be filled with quotes, as in the case of mottoes.

Consider ·the following excerpt from a book tided A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Vol. 11: Atomic Shield:

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: GOD'S IN HIS HEAVEN I. Music Made Visible

II. Cote D' Azur III. Playground of Europe IV. Christmas-Card Castle

V. The Facts of Life VI. Arms and the Man

BOOK TWO: A LITTLE CLOUD VII. The Isles of Greece

VIII. This Realm, this England IX. Green and Pleasant Land X. La Belle France

XI. C' estla Guerre

BOOK THREE: BELLA GERANT ALII XII. Loved I not Honour more

XIII. Women must Weep XlV. The Furies of Pain Xv. Amor inter Arma

XVI. Business as Usual XVII. A Man's World

XVIII. Away from All That

BOOK FOUR: LAND OF THE PILGRIM'S PRIDE XIX. Old Colonial XX. The Pierian Spring

XXI. The Thoughts of Youth XXII. Above the Battle

XXIII. Midsummer Night's Dream XXIV. The World WeIl Lost

BOOK FIVE: THEY HAVE SOWN THE WIND XXV. The Battle Flags are Furled

XXVI. The Parliament of Man

XXVII. The Federation of the World XXVIII. The Red Peril

XXIX. A Friend in Need XXX. Out of the Depths

XXXI. In the Enemy's Country

Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices

BOOKSIX: THEY SHALL REAP THE WHIRLWIND XXXII. I Have Seen the Future

XXXIII. Woe to the Conquered XXXIV. Young Lochinvar XXXv. I Can No Other

XXXVI. The Choice of Hercules XXXVII. Peace in our Time

XXXVIII. Battle of the Stags

125

Quotes and extensions of their overcoding can be arranged as a top-down tree:

TEXTTITLE: Bible I

I I I I I I TITLE OF BOOK: I 11 111 IV V VI

I I I I I I Browning Bible Virgil Smith Bible Bible

I I TITLE OF CHAPTER: 6 8 9 etc.

I I I Shaw Shake- Shake-

etc. speare speare

This example leads us to a second conclusion: Elaborate hierarchies of tide quotes and motto es with their elaborate demarcations of multi-Iayered overcod­ing create certain systematic restraints in a horizontal, and systematic overdeter­minations in a vertical direction which strongly, and perhaps not gratuitously, remind one of organizational charts in modern bureaucracies. The hierarchy itself in its homology to top-down decision processes is overcoded and assigns to the Bible a high er position than to Shakespeare and Shaw. But Shakespeare and Shaw by being subordinated to the Bible become third-rank sacred texts, entided to overcode certain assigned areas of the novel. On the other hand, the horizontal direction enforces a certain equality (cf. Rothe 1986, 333-347) or dignity of the texts quoted: Browning and S. R Smith make it to the second rank because of their religious references, and the 38 chapter tides are finely attuned to a more chivalresque code of intertextual references. And the search for the right quote in such elaborate tide or motto systems has led more than one author to damn, fake or abandon motto es or tide quotes (Berger 1982; Böhm 1975, 11-13, 191).

Other texts prefer subtides (Rothe, 1970, 10-25; Rothe 1986,321-327) for hierarchy; others, again, double mottoes as in the interesting case of The Souls o[ Black Folk, or multiple mottoes (Segermann 1977,43-145), inflated to the mon­strous motto of Moby-Dick; others reproduce tides from mottoes (Rothe 1986, 67; Wieckenberg 1969, 15 L), elevate motto es JO tides or use quotes as both (Segermann 1977, 141-145).

126 W. Karrer

Elementary reproduction in tides and mottoes uses all the transformations known from quotations: the rhetorical metataxes, parody etc. (cf. Plett 1985, 81-88; Karrer 1977, 67-69). These transformations can also be reproduced in tide games, where tides are strung together to form a new text: a kind of tide cento (cf. Rothe 1986, 148) etc. But intertextuality cannot be reduced to the literal or non-literal quotation of bits from other specific texts. Besides elemen­tary there is also structural reproduction in intertextuality (Karrer 1985, 98-104). Structural reproduction in a tide like The System of Dante's Hell still contains a tide quote ("Hell"), but it is not only quoting but also referring, overcoding the parts of LeRoi J ones' new text with the elaborate divisions in Dante's Inferno. Even if the tide is considered to be pardy literal, the text repro­duction is purely structural. Tide reproduction is also structural.

Consider our sixth example: double tides as they move through the genres (Rothe 1970):

Phaidros or On the Beautiful Baptistes sive calumnia Susanne ou le miroir des mesnageres La Dieromene ou Le Repentir d' amour Olympia ou la Caverne de Strozzi Benno von Rabeneck oder Das warnende Gerippe im Brautgemach Dr. Strangelove or H ow I leatned to stop worrying and love the bomb Hähnchen a la Toscana oder Braten Sie schon in Ton?

,.

(philosophical dialogue) (school tragedy) (comedy) (pastoral) (melodrama)

(gothic novel)

(satiric film)

(advertisement)

Imitation and limited variatipns harden into conventions: a syntactic pattern, which began as a pupil's addition to Plato's texts, becomes associated with dia­logue and drama, moves by extension through emblematic double featuring into decadence and final parody. Double tides are often used to ennoble other "Ies­ser" genres by borrowing from philosophy and tragedy (Rothe 1970, 19). The interior distribution of the two parts of the "or" disjunction also implies hierar­chy: the seeming equality of the two parts turns into linearity and subordination (Rothe 1970,23 H.).

Let us reconsider our first example: Brant' s Narren Schyff goes back to a long and rather successful tradition of Narrenspiegel, Mirrors for Fools, early exam­pIes like the Speculum stultorum leading back to the latetwelfth century (Volk­mann 1967, 1207 f.). Brant simply changed the popular-genre marker "mirror" for a new metaphor, or rather a metaphor occurring in other types of context. The tremendous success of the Narren Schyff led imitators like Murner to new variations of Brant's tide. He wrote a Narren Beschwörung (1512), a Der Schel­men Zunft (1512), and a Geuch Matt (1519). By keeping "fools" constant and ringing variations on Brant's "ship" such as "evocation", "guild", or "meadow", Murner also reproduces Brant's device of reproducing and innovating the mir­ror convention. The mirror convention had consisted in keeping the mirror part

Tides and Mot.toes as Intertextual Devices 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)

< fool + x > or < x + fool > < mirror + y > or < y + mirror >

~ /' < x = "container" > < y = "social group" >

~ / < - fool > < x + Y > < - mirror >

'-...../ < 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 Böhm and the commonplace tradition suggest there are such paradigms (e. g. the decorative Victorian "flower" motto; cf. Böhm 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 -'='

Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices 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)

I

Bianca Visconti (1837) Ferdinand and Isabella (1837) Beauchampe (1842) Major Jones's Courtship (1843) Conspiracy o[ Pontiac (1851) Hiawatha (1855) Francesca da Rimini (1855) The Cassique o[ Kiawah (1859) Miss Ravenel's Conversion (1867) Roderick Hudson (1876) Count Frontenac (1877) Lady o[ the Aroostook (1879) The Grandissimees (1889)

Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices

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.

131

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

The Fair God (1873) Sevenoaks(1875) Hearts of Oak (1879) A WhiteHeron (1886) The Tragic Muse (1890) Flute and Violin (1891) Golden House (1894) The Choir Invisible (1897) Sacred Fount (1901) Wings of the Dove (1902) The Golden Bowl (1904) The Eagle's Shadow (1904) Roads of Destiny (1909) Dome of Many-Colored Glass (1912) Sword Blades and Poppy Seed (1914) Painted Veils (1920) This Side of Paradise (1920) BlackArmour (1923) Roan Stallion (1925) Silver Stallion (1926) Look Homeward, Angel (1929) Green Laureis (1936) ThePilgrimHawk (1940) Masque of Mercy (1947) Guard of H onor (1948) Thrones (1959)

If we compare these emblazoned titles, deriving from religious or medieval heraldry, if not from ancient Greece, to the following titles, the contrast be­comes dear:

Leaves of Grass (1855) Bricks without Straw (1880) Five Little Peppers (1881) Old Swimmin'-Hole (1883) The OldHomestead (1886) Main-Travelled Roads (1891) The Pit (1903) Cabbages and Kings (1904) TheJungle, (1906) The Scarecrow (1908) The Harbor (1915) Cornhuskers (1918) Smoke and Steel (1920) A Few Figs from Thistles (1920) Triumph of the Egg (1921) Covered Wagon (1922) Black Oxen (1923) Adding Machine (1923) All God's Chillun (1924) Enough Rope (1926) Street Scene (1929) Tobacco Road (1932)

Man with aBull-Tongue Plow (1934) The Cradle will Rock (1937) Of Mice and Men (1937) The Naked and the Dead (1948) etc.

Titles and Mottoes as Intertextual Devices 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 over-coding. '

Bibliography

Bergengruen, Werner 1960 Titulus. Das ist: Miszellen, Kollektaneen und Fragmentarische, mit gelegentlichen

Irrtümern durchsetzte Gedanken zur Naturgeschichte des deutschen Buchtitels; oder, Unbetitelter Lebensroman eines Bibliotheksbeamten. München: Nymphen­burger.

Berger, D. A. 1982 . '''Damn the Mottoe': Scott and the Epigraph." Anglia 100, 373-396.

Böhm, Rudolf 1975 Das Motto in der englischen Literatur des 19.Jahrhunderts. München: Fink.

134 W. Karrer

Bourdieu, Pierre/Luc Boltanski 1981 "Titel und Stelle. Zum Verhältnis von Bildung und Beschäftigung." In Titel und

Stelle. Über die Reproduktion sozialer Macht. Tr. H. Köhler et al. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 89-116.

Eco, Umberto 1976 A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, Ind.lLondon: Indiana University Press.

Genette, Gerard 1988 "Structure and Functions of the Tide in Literature. " Criticallnquiry 14,692-720.

Grivel, Charles 1973 Production de l'interet romanesque. Un etat du texte (1870-1880). Un essai de con­

stitution de sa theorie. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Hewlett, Richard G.lFrancis Duncan

1969 A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Vol. 2: Atomic Shield, 194711952. University Park/London: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hoek,LeoH. 1981 La marque du titre. Dispositifs semiotiques d'une pratique textuelle. Approaches to

Semiotics, 60. La Haye/Paris/New York: Mouton. Karrer, Wolfgang

1977 Parodie, Travestie, Pastiche. München: Fink. 1985 "Intertextualität als Elementen- und Struktur-Reproduktion." In U. Broich/M. Pfi­

ster, eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 98-116.

Kuhnen, Johannes 1953 "Die Gedicht-Überschrift. Versuch einer Gliederung nach Arten und Leistungen."

Diss. Frankfurt. Meyer, Reinhart

1987 Novelle und Journal. Vol.1: Titel und Normen. Untersuchungen zur Terminologie der Journalprosa, zu ihren Tendenzen, Verhältnissen und Bedingungen. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Plett, Heinrich F. 1985 "Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In U. Broich/M. Pfister,

eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 78-98.

Rothe, Arnold 1970 Der Doppeltitel. Zu Form und Geschichte einer literarischen Konvention.

Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften, Klasse 1969, 10. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.

1986 Der literarische Titel: Funktionen, Formen, Geschichte. Abendland, NS, 16. Frank­furt: Klostermann.

Segermann, Krista 1977 Das Motto in der Lyrik. Funktion und Form der "epigraphe" vor Gedichten der

französischen Romantik sowie der nachromantischen Zeit. München: Fink. Sondheim, Moritz

1927 Das Titelblatt. Mainz: Gutenberg Gesellschaft. Volkmann, Herbert

1967 "Der deutsche Romantitel (1470-1770). Eine buch- und literaturgeschichdiche Un­tersuchung." Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 8,1145-1323.

Wieckenberg, Ernst-Peter 1969 Zur Geschichte der Kapitelüberschrift im deutschen Roman vom 15.jahrhundert bis

zum Ausgang des Barock. Palaestra, 253. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wilke, Hans-Jürgen

1955 "Die Gedichtüberschrift. Versuch einer historisch-systematischen Entwicklung." Diss. Frankfurt.

UD0J. HEBEL

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion

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.

1. Allusion as I ntertextual Device

1.1. AllusionRedefined

In his A Map 0/ Misreading, Harold Bloom sketches the history of allusion on the basis of the respective entries in the Oxford English Dictionary and, eventu­ally, arrives at the distinction between a "fourth meaning, which is still the cor­rect modern one [ ... ] and involves any implied, indirect or hidden reference,"

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

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 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 Erzählkunst, 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).

1.2. Allusions as Evocative Fragments of the Intertextual Deji

The changing focus of allusional theory, i. e., the disregard for the criterion of covertness and the interest in allusion as an intertextually relational device, em­phasizes the evocative potential of allusions and the description of the dynamic process of their actualization. While Perri oudines this process almost laconi­callyas "recognizing, remembering, realizing, connecting" (Perri 1978, 301), Coombs distinguishes between the steps of "allusive reference" and "allusive implication" (Coombs 1984,477), and Schmid sketches as many as seven phases with regard to 'diegetic allusions' (Schmid 1983, 152). Once again, however, it is Ben-Porat who provides the most effective, and interpretively significant, model:

The more complex process of actualizing a literary allusion can be described as a movement starting with the recognition of the marker and ending with intertextual patterning. The reader has to perceive the existence of a marker before any further activity can take place. This percep­tion entails a recollection of the original form of the marker, and in most cases leads to the identification of the text in which it has originally appeared. The recollection of the marker's original form may suffice for a modified and fuller interpretation of the sign as it appears in the alluding text. Identification of the marker's larger "referent," the evoked text, is mandatory for intertextual patterning beyond the modified interpretation of the marker itself. The process can be roughly summarized in four stages. (Ben-Po rat 1976, 109-110)

138 U. Hebel

The four stages, then, read as folIows: recognition of a marker, identification of the evoked text, modification of the initial interpretation of the signal, activation of the evoked text as a whole in an attempt to form a maximum of intertextual patterns.

Besides the formalization of theprocess of actualizing allusions, the addi­tional systems of signification drawn into the alluding text playamajor role in re cent approaches to allusion. Coombs's interest in allusive implications, Schmid's concern with intertextual equivalences and oppositions, Ben-Porat's emphasis on the intertextual referent and the formation of intertextual patterns, and Perri's stress on "additional inter- and intra-textual patterns of associated attributes" (Perri 1978, 293), all suggest that a successful allusion does not sim­ply direct the reader to another text on a purely referentiallevel. More specifi­cally, a successful allusion enriches the alluding text semantically by going be­yond the level of me re denotation; the latter is, however, instrumental in estab­lishing the intertextual relation as it dovetails text and pretext. A successful allu­sion always evokes theoretically unlimited and unpredictable (cf. Ben-Porat 1976, 127) associations and connotations. Thus, a text's allusions disrupt its syntagmatic flow and expose the reader to the realm of predominantly, if not purely, associative "vertical context systems" (Schaar 1975, 1978, 1982). Each allusion becomes "the apex of an associative paradigm" (Riffaterre 1978, 95).2 Such adynamie view of allusion is figuratively best expressed in Johnson's dichotomy of "denotative nucleus" and "connotative cytoplasm" (Johnson 1976,580).

In the wake of poststructuralist textual theory and in accord with major theoreticians of allusion (Perri 1978,295,305; Schmid 1983, 153; Coombs 1984, 477), it seems possible and onl)'i consequent to extend the scope of this concept of allusion beyond the limits of Ben-Porat's approach that restriets itself to liter­ary allusions (Ben-Porat 1976)."In the same way that literary allusions are con­sidered evocative links between texts, allusions to nonliterary points of refer­ence - nonliterary texts, persons of past or contemporary his tory, events of social or political history etc. - may be regarded as evocative links between the text and the intertextual deja. Carmela Perri's correlating allusions and proper names may support this argument: "Allusion-markers act like proper names in that they denote unique individuals (source texts), but they also tacitly specify the property(ies) belonging to the source text's connotation relevant to the allu­sion's meaning." (Perri 1978, 291) Searle's definition of proper names as "pegs on which to hang descriptions" (Searle 1969, 172) further illustrates the similar­ity between the working of literary allusions in terms of Ben-Porat and the working of onomastic allusions to persons outside the alluding text. Just as liter-

2 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·" .~.,:- Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 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., Höhler 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.

1.3. Dialogie Allusions and the Reader as Text A reh eologist

Dynamic conceptions of allusions as metonymie or sylleptic (Riffaterre 1979; Riffaterre 1980) elements in the alluding text involve a modified view of the referent. Traditional studies of allusion are all too often primarily concerned with the identification of the alluded-to referent and do usually not lead to a reinterpretation of the latter. In the context of the Bakhtin-renaissance, intertex­tual approaches to allusion have emphasized the dialogic nature of the relation­ships between alluding texts and evoked referents, i. e., the consequence that any allusion involves a commentary about the text, person, or event called up. While Ben-Porat and Perri remain rather truncated in this regard (Ben-Porat 1976, 114-115; Perri 1978,296), Renate Lachmann affirms for quotation what holds equally true for allusion:

Der fremde evozierte Text (Referenztext) tritt durch die Signale (Referenzsignale) mit dem ak­tuellen, fremde Texte evozierenden Text (Phänotext) in eine intertextuelle Beziehung, die nach der Art der Qualifizierung der Referenzsignale selbst in ihrer Funktion für die Sinnkonstitution bestimmt werden kann. [ ... ] Das Zitat wird in seiner Doppelfunktion: im Verweis 'auf einen Referenztext diesen sowohl in seinen Elementen zu repräsentieren als auch gleichzeitig über ihn eine Aussage zu machen [ ... ] voll genutzt. [sie] (Lachmann 1980,19; also Lachmann 1984,136)

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

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.

T Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 141

an 'informed' critic - the text archeologist - to res tore the text's associative verticality that purely syntagmatic readings are inclined to disregard.

1.4. Verifying Intertextual Allusions

The archeological work of documenting allusions and verbalizing their evoca­tive potential goes hand-in-hand with, and actually presupposes, the verification of those textual elements as intertextually related signals that strike the inter­preter as possible allusions when reading the text syntagmatically. This initial, still h~pothetical, assumption will be stirred by the interpreter's allusive compe­tence In most cases of unmarked allusions, and by special features of the alluding text, such as quotation marks, italicization, capitalization, or even a character's comment, in most cases of titles or marked quotations. After the interpreter's initial assumption has been checked against the archeological apparatus, the sig­nal is either established as a truly intertextual allusion evoking a referent trace­able in the extrafictional dejd or, as will be the case with playfully marked sig­nals, recognized as a pseudointertextual allusion without a traceable extrafic­tional referent. In instances of suspected implicit allusions, a third variant may concern the falsification of the reader's initial assumption.

The verification of a textual element as intertextually related allusion is the prerequisite for actualizing an evocative potential that is independent from the interpreter's individual disposition. Allusions verified as metonymic elements of the extrafictional dejd cO~'mect the text's potential and the informed interpret­er's "repertoire" (cf. Iser 1984, esp. 114-116). If, however, a textual element hypothetically assumed to be an intertextually allusive signal on account of any of the features mentioned above cannot be verified extrafictionally and, conse­~uently, is classified as a pseudointertextual allusion, the following interpreta­tIOn has to cope with a primarily arbitrary level of meaning. Associations sparked by pseudointertextual allusions remain predominantly personal and playful and are only checked by their cotextual embedding, with the latter, how­ever, participating in the same system of signification. Pseudointertextual allu­sions neither tack the signals toward definite points of reference in the extrafic­tional dejd, nor do they establish verifiable links between the text's potential and the informed interpreter's repertoire. Pseudointertextual allusions to "The Se­cret Goldfish" in Salinger's Catcher in the Rye (Salinger 1951/1964,1), to "'Mad Trist' by Sir Launcelot Canning" in Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" (Poe 1839/1978,413), or to "The Courier's Tragedy" in Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 (Pynchon 1966, 63) may serve as representative examples of signals that, though in different ways and to different degrees, seem to evoke intertextual points of reference, but only direct the reader back onto themselves and back i~to the deluding text. Although the signals mentioned above are able to call up hterary conventions, neither a verifiable referent nor any definite attribute guides the text' s play with the reader. Although pseudointertextual allusions can be traced back as far as Cervantes and have always been employed as particularly

142 u. Hebel

ingenious devices, pseudointertextuality has once again become prominent in postmodern literature.

2. Describing Allusions

2.1. Syntagmatic Manifestations of Allusions

The verification - or falsification - of a signal as (pseudo )intertextual allusion and the actualization of its evocative potential is to be followed by the descrip­tion of the allusion with regard to its form and function within the alluding text as weIl as with regard to its original status as an element of the extrafictional deja. Referring to Frye's dichotomy, Rudat states:

I will call the first step, i. e., the "playing to" the allusive context, the centrifugal vector of the allusion, and the second step, i. e., the "pulling in" of meaning into the alluding context, the centripetal vector of the allusion. (Rudat 1985,2)

Whereas the actualization of evocative potential correlates to Rudat's first step, the description and interpretation of allusions resembles his second step. The approach presented hereafter does not, however, content itself with the "pulling in" of meaning, i. e., with the semantic enrichment of allusively organized texts; moreover, it aims at the systematic description of allusions with regard to their working within the alluding text. The categories introduced have been designed in the context of repeated demands for such a descriptive poetics (Lachmann 1983, 67; Plett 1985, 80). In its scope, the description mainly concentrates on explicit (marked) allusions in narrative texts; but for a few exceptions, examples are therefore mostly taken froql novels. The openness of the descriptive system nevertheless ensures its modified transfer to the interpretation of implicit allu­sions as well as to the interpretätion of allusions in non-narrative texts.

In its first step, the descriptive appreciation of an allusion has to account for the manifestation of the intertextuallink within the syntagmatic flow of the text. Besides the basic distinction between implicit (unmarked) and explicit (marked) allusions, with typographie conventions such as quotation marks, italicization, capitalization, and spacing being the most important means of indicating an intertextual relationship on the text's surface, the distinction between quota­tional allusions, titular allusions, and onomastic allusions may serve to further classify allusive signals. The distinction 'marked' vs. 'unmarked' is of only minor significance for onomastic allusions because, owing to their particularly referential nature, proper names are able to direct the reader to referents all by themselves. Thus, proper names that do not refer to characters of the fictional world are readily affirmed as allusive signals. When, in The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway yearns for "the shining secrets that only Midas and Morgan and M~cenas knew" (Fitzgerald 1925/1953, 4), the reader is confronted with three names that cannot be related to any of the novel's characters. As onomastic allusions whose extrafictional referents can easily be verified they are able to

·1.··'·<·;·'

f'

~ ~' ~"

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 143

evoke a rather broad range of associations pertaining to proverbial, beneficial, yet also destructive wealth. Quite similarly, Prufrock' s claim, "'No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be,'" in Eliot's "The Love Song ofJ. Alfred Prufrock" (Eliot 1963, 17) sets up an in tertextuallink between Eliot' s poem and Shake­speare's play that ironically illustrates Prufrock's indecisiveness and insecurity.

Onomastic allusions are more complex when a character of the fictional world bears a name that also functions as an intertextual allusion. The degree of simi­larity between a character's name and the name of the referent person may vary greatly; the equation and inversion of initials, as is the case with the letters "J" and "C" in the names of Jim Conklin, one of the soldiers in Crane's The Red· Badge of Courage (1895/1982), and Jesus Christ, and with the letters "H" and "F" in the names of Henry Fleming and Frederick Henry, the protagonists of The Red Badge ofCourage and Hemingway'sA Farewell toArms (1929/1957), the phonetic and graphie similarity of the names of the protagonists of Lewis's Babbitt (1922) and Updike's Rabbit-trilogy (1960, 1971, 1981), and the evoca­tion of Jean-Marie Villiers de L'Isle-Adam and - only recognizable on ac count of the novel' s events - J ohn Peale Bishop by means of the name of Thomas Parke D'Invilliers in Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise (1920/1970), elucidate the al­most limitless range of possibilities available to authors in relating fictional characters to intertextual points of reference. Clearly, comparable onomastic allusions such as, e. g., toponymic allusions can be equally evocative.

The group of quotational allusions, first of all, needs to be divided into 'marked quotations and unmarked quotations. The recognition of unmarked quotations depends almost entirely on the reader's allusive competence that, to include one example, allows for the identification of Amory Blaine's self­characterization in This Side of Paradise ("'[ ... ] yet I have not one drop of the milk of human kindness."'; Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 280) as an allusion to Shake­speare's Macbeth. Quotations can be marked as intertextual signals by means of quotation marks, as in the case of the quotation from Keats's "The Eve of St. Ag­nes" ("I don't catch the subtle things like 'silver-snarling trumpets."') in This Side of Paradise (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 84), by italicization, as in the case of a quotation from Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind" ("How many miles must a man . ... Folk. Rock is out ... the answer, my friend ... Love and peace are in. ") in Updike's Couples (Updike 1968,439), by italicization and reproduction in the originallanguage, as in the case of a quotation from Tristan und Isolde ("Oed' und leer das Meer") in Eliot's The Waste Land (Eliot 1963,64), or by spacing longer quotations, as in the case of the quotation frorn MarveIl's "To His Coy Mistress" in Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms (Hemingway 1929/1957, 154). Of course, all means of indicating allusions can be combined with each other and/or with the name of the author, with the latter furthermore supporting the foregrounding of the intertextual link, Examples for this subgroup are the quotes from "To His Coy Mistress" in A Farewell to Arms and from "Triumph of Time" in This Side of Paradise (Fitzgerald 1920/1970,231-232) in which instances Marvell and Swinburne are explicitly referred to in the text.

144 u. Hebel

Titular allusions also need to be described as unmarked or marked signals. While unmarked titular allusions - two examples may be the allusion to Allen Ginsberg's "Howl" in Cheever's Bullet Park (Cheever 1969/1979, 6) and the allusion to Thompson's "The Hound of Heaven" in This Side of Pa ra dise (Fitz­gerald 1920/1970, 262) - must be counted in among the most difficult signals to be recognized on the text's surface, most marked titular allusions, no matter whether the signal evokes a book, a magazine, a song, or a painting, employ the typographical conventions mentioned before to activate the reader's allusive competence. Thus, italicization marks "Penrod Jasper [sic], Uncle Tom 's Cabin, U.S.A." (Oates 1968, 105) and 'CScientific American" and "Reader's Digest" (Oates 1968,46) in Expensive People; quotation marks designate "'The Scarlet Letter'" and "'Tom Sawyer'" ironically presented as quasi-historical reading in Cather's The Professor's Hause (Cather 1925/1938, 50), '"Middlemarch''' read by Penelope in Howells's The Rise of Silas Lapham (Howells 1885/1971, 88), and the painting '''Cherry Ripe'" mentioned as decorative piece in Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 167); and capitalization specifies "Golden Treasury" as the tide of a book in This Side of Paradise (Fitzgerald 1920/1970,47) although the widespread use of this poetry anthology in America is, of course, not yet evoked.

Typographical conventions mayaiso help distinguish lexically identical allu­sions to different points of reference. Thus, Doyle's novel Sir Nigel is evoked twice in This Side of Paradise: firsdy, by means of a titular allusion with the signal marked as a tide by quotation marks (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 27; "Sir Nigel"); and, secondly, by means of an onomastic allusion to the novel's pro­tagonist with the name not markeq as an allusive signal (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 31; Sir Nigel). When a verbal sequence has been recognized as an intertextually related signal on account of quotation marks, capitalization can similarly help decide whether the allusion is to be treated as a (short) quotation or as a tide. Capitalization identifies the signal '''Mystic and Somber Dolores'" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 51) as a titular allusion to Swinburne' s poem even if the original tide merely reads "Dolores," whereas the use of smal11etters in the signal '''silver­snarling trumpets'" cited above indicates that the phrase is to be classified as a quotational allusion.

The systematic description of a text's allusions as (marked and/or unmarked) quotational allusions, titular allusions, or onomastic allusions allows for the evaluation of the text's referentiality and communicativity (Pfister 1985, 26-27), and therewith for the evaluation of the text's intertextual and metatextual inten- t.

sity. The analysis of the various means of marking intertextuallinks on the text' s surface permits the appreciation of the consciousness of the intertextual relation both in the act of producing the text and in the act of actualizing the text. Prac­tices such as Eliot's "Notes on the Waste Land" (Eliot 1963,80-86) document a maximum of intertextual consciousness on the side of the author and intend to ensure an equally intense intertextual awareness on the side of the reader, pro­vided that such notes or indexes are not just another manifestation of the text' s -

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 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.

2.2. Localization of Allusions

The second category assesses the localization of allusions:

Die Ebenen, auf denen jeweils der Bezug zu Geschriebenem erfolgt, dürfen nicht verwischt oder verschoben werden. Ein aus einem anderen Buch stammendes Motto über einem Buch ist etwas anderes als derselbe Ausspruch im Munde einer der Hauptfiguren eben dieses Buches. Was ein­mal nur ein Signal ist, das ist bei anderer Gelegenheit, also innerhalb des Rahmens der Fiktion, ein Charakteristikum oder ein Mittel der Motivierung. (Wuthenow 1980, 18)

Notwithstanding Wuthenow's limited perspective on literary allusions, the above quotation draws attention to the significance of the localization of allu­sions within the text's multilayered webwork. The opening passage of Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye with its allusion to "all that David Copperfield kind of crap" (Salinger 1951/1964, 1) evidences how the interpretation of allusions needs to consider the narrative situation of the alluding text, in this instance a retrospective first-person narration. The allusive self-characterization of Hol­den Caulfield, especially his outspoken contempt for tradition al Victorian cul­ture, and the metatextual contrast between the novelistic convention evoked by the mention of Dickens's David Copperfield on the one hand, and its inversion in Salinger's novel on the other, has to be placed into the context of Holden's account of his life. Owing to the mediative nature of any act of narration, allu­sions can neither be taken as pseudobiographical clues to the author's reading or intellectuality, nor can they be analyzed with regard to their stylistic effect only. The interpretation needs instead to ponder the consequences of the mediation of allusions and their cotextualization for, e. g., the assessment of their characteriz­ing function, not only in instances of first-person narrative situations, but in instances of figural and omniscient narrative situations as well.

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 "Geheimgespräch" (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.

. j I

T owards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 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 J oyce' 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:

..

"You have studied Emerson, haven't you?" "Emers on, sir?" "Ralph Waldo Emerson." I was embarrassed because I hadn't. "Not yet, sir. We haven't come to hirn yet." "No?" he said with a note of surprise. "WeIl, never mind. I am a New Englander, like Emerson. You must leam ab out hirn, for he was important to your people. He had a hand in your destiny. [ ... ]" (Ellison 1947,42)

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

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 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 0/ American Popular Culture (In ge 1978-1981).

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

The fourth descriptive category, modification, pertains to possible differences between the wording of the allusive signal in the alluding text, on the one hand, and the wording of the quotation in its original cotext, the original tide, and even the true proper name of a person, on the other. As the present approach concen­trates on the alluding text, questions as to the intentionality or unintentionality of such modifications are rendered obsolete. Theoreticians of quotation have repeatedly emphasized the significance of modifications (esp., Metschies 1966, 5; Meyer 1967, 15; Simon 1984, 1053; Plett 1988), and Heinrich F. Plett writes as follows:

Bislang war vom Zitat als einer intertextuellen Äquivalenz die Rede, wobei stillschweigend un­terstellt wurde, daß das zitierte Textsegment unverändert vom Prätext in den Text übergeht. Eine derartige Äquivalenz oder Identität ist jedoch nicht die Regel. Vielmehr dürfte das Zitat häufig gewisse Änderungen erfahren, die [ ... ] im poetischen Kontext zusätzlichen Spielraum für Poly­semie- und Ironie-Phänomene schaffen. Die Veränderungen erfordern die Aufspaltung des Zitatsegments in zwei Varianten; die erste ist Bestandteil des Prätextes, die zweite Bestandteil des Textes. (Plett 1985, 82)

The impact of modifications is quite obvious for quotational allusions, and it will weIl suffice to once more pointJo the extended allusion to Benjamin Frank­lin in The Great Gatsby (Fitzger1ald 1925/1953, 174) where, on the fly-leaf of "a ragged old copy of a book called H opalong Cassidy, " young Jimmy Gatz noted a trivialized twentieth-century version of Franklin's well-known schedule for self-improvement. However, the following passage from Tender is the Night illustrates the applicability of this fourth category to onomastic and titular allu­sions as weIl:

The sun had dipped into the Via N azionale and he [Dick Diver] let it through the portieres with a jingling of old brass rings. Waiting for a suit to be pressed, he discovered from the Corriere della Sera that "una novella di Sainclair Lewis 'Wall Street' nella quale autore analizza la vita sociale di una pie cola citta Americana." Then he tried to think about Rosemary. (Fitzgerald 1933/1961, 207).

Notwithstanding the debatable nostalgia in Lewis's Main Street, an allusion to this novel by means of its genuine tide might have evoked a critical image of America and her 'sociallife' for the contemporary reader. Yet, the variant "Wall Street" with its substitution of "Wall" for "Main," and the resulting explicit reference to the hub of the Great Depression emphasizes the dark sides of American economic life and its avowed materialism. Whereas it may go rather far to read the variant "Wall Street" as an allusion to the subtide of Melville's "Bardeby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-Street" and induce further implica-

T T owards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 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.

2.5. Semantic Meaning o[ Allusions

The fifth category deals with the semantic meaning of the signal within the syn­tagmatic flow of the text and approaches the allusion independent of its actual­ization. This category interrelates with the first one because the semantic struc­ture of onomastic, titular, and quotational allusions differs gready. With the exception of telling names, nicknames, and names in connection with a special rank or status - "Peter the Hermit" and "Queen Margherita" in This Side o[ Paradise (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 149, 3) are to be mentioned as representative examples -, onomastic allusions usually lack a semantic meaning in the sense proper. Borderline cases are names that have become lexicalized and, as, e. g., Babbitt and epicure, are included in dictionaries. As "pegs on which to hang

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

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 153

(1981) have discussed the semantic incompleteness, ambiguity, and openness of titles and the reciprocal or dialectic relationship between tide and text. Titles are both comparable to proper names as regards their referential nature and differ­ent from proper names as regards the usually motivated connection with their texts. The description of titular allusions faces the problem of analyzing the semantic meaning of titles that are disconnected from their texts and the latters' explicatory effect. In terms of Buder, it deals with the 'absolute information' of titles (Buder 1982, 74-75). Buder's proposals for the analysis of the lexical and/ or suggestive meaning of titles (Buder 1982, 81-91, 98-99) and his discussion of 'name titles' (Buder 1982, 93 -94), Rothe' s remarks on copulative and subordina­tive titles (Rothe 1986, 176; also Buder 1982, 96), genre conventions (Rothe 1986, 204-206), and the generalizing, specifying, or identifying functions of subtitles (Rothe 1986, 321), and, finally, Rothe' sand Hoek' s concern with inter­textual titles (Rothe 1986,41-51; Hoek 1981, 190), all provide valuable starting points for a description of the semantic meaning of titular allusions. '''Riders of Ranch Reckless'" (Lewis 1920,51), '''The Rise of the Colored Empires'" (Fitz­gerald 1925/1953, 13), "The Love Nest" (Fitzgerald 1925/1953, 96), '''The Girl from Kankakee'" (Lewis 1920,219), "'The Damnation ofTheron Ware'" (Lewis 1920,66), '''Joan and Peter'" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 209), '''Mystic and Somber Dolores'" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 51), "The N ew York H erald" (Fitzgerald 1933/1961, 18), "Scientific American rand] Reader's Digest" (Oates 1968, 46), '"Hamlet''' (Lewis 1920, 223), "lEneid" (Cather 1925/1938, 249), and '''Wall Street''' (Fitzgerald 1933/1961,207) may serve to elucidate various types of titu­lar allusions. The 'absolute' semantic meaning of these signals depends on their lexicalized items, their onomastic elements, their syntactic structures, and, pos­sibly, their intertextual potential. Even more than onomastic and quotational allusions, titular allusions require the interpretation of the intricate interrelation between their semantic meaning in" the narrower sense and their suggestive and connotative potential.

The preceding discussion shows that the description of the semantic meaning of allusions cannot be formalized all too sttictly. As soon as the interpretation of allusions tackles questions related to the understandability of a text in general, and its semantic openness, its presuppositions, and its implied reader in particu­lar, it becomes obvious that the text's infinite, ever elusive semantic potential cannot, and must not, be pressed in heuristic categories. For these reasons, the fifth category contents itself with a less formal and more verbally descriptive assessment of the lexical, suggestive, and connotative meaning of allusive sig­nals. All the same, the evaluation of this category will yield further insight into the text's semantic openness and/or closure, its vulnerability to intertextual ero­sions, and its accessibility to the allusively incompetent reader.

154 u. Hebel

2.6. Cotextualization of Allusions

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) ,

In this passage from Main Street, it is Carol Kennicott's '"re-reading''' of Frederic's controversial novel and the literary attitudes voiced by Vida Sherwin that cotextualize the allusion and comment on its referent. The example illus­trates that the specific intellectual and emotional disposition of the respective

6 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.

I "

T owards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 155

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

linked together is inconsistent - or even intentionally juxtaposed - deserves special mention at this point.

All means of cotextualization sketched above influence the actualization that can therefore be considered a "Prozeß gelenkter Wahrnehmung" Gauß 1970, 175; cf. Anderegg 1977, 13-14) in terms of reception theory. To different de­grees and extents, lexical and structural (i. e., figural and situational) cotextual­ization contributes 10 the syntagmatic - intratextual- understandability of allu­sions. The analysis of the types of cotextualization employed in a text sheds light on the latter's semantic openness and the allusive competence presupposed in the structure of the implied reader. Furthermore, the analysis of the cotextuali­zation of allusions elucidates the metatextual dimension of the alluding text as it is the dialog between the alluding text and its means of cotextualization, on the one side, and the intertextual point of reference, on the other, that evidences the stance the alluding text takes toward the other text, person, or event.

2.7. Functions of Allusions

Whereas the six categories discussed so far concern themselves primarily with the text's intertextual intensity, its intertextual relatedness, its syntagmatic understandability, its presuppositions, and the structure of its implied reader, and thus with questions rarely touched upon by scholars of allusion, the last category, function, can refer to a fair number of previous studies. Although the functional analysis has lost its traditionally privileged position in the present approach, it is nevertheless revalorized in the wake of hermeneutic perspectives on intertextuality (cf. Broich/Pfister 1985; Schulte-Middelich 1985) and ac­knowledged as significant part 0f the description and interpretation of interse­mantic allusions. The seventh, and last, descriptive category is divided into three subcategories (cf. Plett 1986, .12; Schulte-Middelich 1985, 214): intratextual function (e. g., characterization, thematic parallel, setting evocation, fore­shadowing); metatextual function; and intertextual function (authentication). In order to pursue the semantic potential of an allusion as far as possible, its functional interpretation needs to be based on the evocative potential archeolog­ically retrieved. The intertextualist now becomes the allusively competent, truly informed reader who strives to fill the structure of the text' s implied reader as comprehensively as possible, though knowing that a complete equation will never be achieved.

The examples used 10 illustrate the first six categories already imply most of the functions allusions may perform. The onomastic allusion to David Belasco in The Great Gatsby and the quotational allusion to Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress" in A Farewell to Arms dearly support the themes of these novels; Monsignor Darcy's description as a "pagan, Swinburnian young man" in This Side of Paradise (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 7), Holden Caulfield's contempt for David Copperfield in The Catcher in the Rye, Richard Everett's "scorning" of Reader's Digest in Expensive People, and Vida Sherwin's opinions about The

T I

I

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 157

Damnation of Theron Ware in Main Street, all advance the characterization of these figures. 7 The evocation of "Babes in the Woods" in This Side of Paradise supplies part of the background for the romantic love scene between Amory and Isabelle. The way in which allusions may foreshadow events or outcome of a novel can be demonstrated by the two epigraphs to This Side of Paradise: while the quotation from Rupert Brooke's poem "Tiare Tahiti" hints at the general spirit of disillusion the protagonist Amory Blaine eventually arrives at, the quo­tation from Oscar Wilde's play Lady Windermere's Fan, with its implication of Lady Windermere's personal sacrifice for her daughter, ironically points to Amory Blaine's "supercilious sacrifice" for his friend Alec Connage (Fitzgerald 1920/1970,243-253).

The passages ab out "all that David Copperfield kind of crap" and "Mrs. Bur­nett's vicious tracts" are striking examples of lexical cotextualization involving metatextual commentary, not only on the specific texts evoked, but also on the literary conventions they represent. The figural cotextualization of the allusions to The Masses, Tolstoy, WeIls, Edward Carpenter, and Whitman in This Side of Paradise associates their referents with Burne Holiday, the campus reformer, and his socialist and pacifist views. It will be obvious that this type of metatextu­ality requires the dose examination of the cotextualizing characters' attitudes toward the alluded-to points of reference in order to heed possible ironic twists. When Amory Blaine is "rather surprised by his discovery through a critic named Mencken of several excellent American novels: 'Vandover and the Brute,' 'The Damnation of Theron Ware,' and 'Jennie Gerhardt'" (Fitzgerald 1920/1970, 209), the lexical cotext ("excellent") evaluates Norris's, Frederic's, and Dreiser's novels positively; the intertextual cotextualization by means of "a critic named Mencken," however, places these texts in the tradition of naturalist writing that was hotly debated weIl into the 1920s. Although the mere evocation of an inter­textual point of reference already entails a metatextual gesture (Beugnot 1976, 8), the cotextualization opens up the dialog between the alluding text and the latter's intertextual coordinates. Prerequisite for this metatextual interpretation of allusions is their understanding as dynamic, bilaterally directed intertextual signals.

A third functional perspective, in addition to and in between the intratextual and the metatextuallevel, appreciates the allusion's contribution to the 'reality effect' of the narrative text. As basically nonfictional elements of the deja (Eyk­man 1978; Schmid 1983, 153; Simon 1984,1074), extrafictionally verified aIlu­sions anchor the fictional world in the extrafictional world. Of course, the 'real­ity effect' gains momentum with the contemporaneity, topicality, or controver­siality of the points of reference. Thus, the allusions to Belasco in The Great

7 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; Stückrath 1984; Wuthenow 1980.

158 U. Hebel

Gatsby, to Velvet Underground in The Tooth 0/ Crime, and to the assassination of President Kennedy in Couples (Updike 1968,293) affirm the authenticity of the fictional worlds and tack them onto the extrafictional worlds of their im­mediate contemporaries. On the contrary, temporally and geographically re­mo te allusions do not only complicate the text's presuppositional structure but also ren der its fictional world less authentie and less immediate.8

* 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. 1963 Collected Poems 1909-1962. London: Faber & Faber.

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.'

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion

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.

159

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

U pdike, J ohn 1960 1968 1971 1981

The Tooth ofCrime. In Sam Shepard, Seven Plays. New York: Bantam.

Rabbit, Run. New York: Knopf. Couples. New York: Knopf. Rabbit Redux. New York: Knopf. Rabbit is Rich. New York: Knopf.

2. Secondary Sources

Abrams, M. H. 1981 A Glossary of Literary Terms. Fourth Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Win­

ston. Anderegg, J ohannes

1977 Fiktion und Kommunikation: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der Prosa. Second Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bachtin, Michail M. 1979 Die Ästhetik des Wortes. Ed. Rainer GrÜbel. 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 Com­

munication."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 Intertextualität." In Broich/Pfister, 31-47. Broich, Ulrich/pfister, Manfred, eds.

1985 Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: 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 1983

Buder, Guido 1982

"Bibliographie annotee: Ecrits sur l'intertextualite." Texte 2, 217-258.

Titel und Text: Information ""rtd Wirkung des italienischen Novellentitels (G. Verga, L. Pirandello, A. Moravia) vor und während der Tex tlek türe. Rheinfelden: Schäuble. I

Burgess, William .. 1903/1968 The Bible in Shakespeare: A Study of the Relation of the Works of William Shake­

speare 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.

Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 161

Eykman, Christoph 1978 "Erfunden oder Vor-gefunden? Zur Integration des Außerfiktionalen 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.

1965 "Zitat und literarische Anspielung in der modernen italienischen Lyrik." In Fritz Schalk, ed. Ideen und Formen: Festschrift für 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 Textarchäologie: Untersuchungen zur Intertextualität am

Beispiel von F. Scott FitzgeraIds This Side of Paradise. Mainzer Studien zur Amerikanistik, 23. Frankfurt, Bern, New York: Lang.

Höhler, Gertrud 1969 Unruhige Gäste: 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 of American Popular Culture. 3 vols. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Iser, Wolfgang

1984 Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung. Second Edition. München: 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 auß, Hans Robert 1970 Literaturgeschichte als Provokation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Jensch, Fritz 1925 Wilhelm Raabes Zitatenschatz. Wolfenbüttel: Heckner.

J ohnson, Anthony L. 1976 "Allusion in Poetry." PTL: AJournal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Litera­

ture 1, 579-587. J ohnson, Oakley C.

1928 "Literary Allusion and Reference in Contemporary American Literature. " Diss.

Klotz, Volker 1976

Kristeva, J ulia

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

"Zitat und Montage in neuerer Literatur und Kunst." Sprache im technischen Zeital­ter 60,259-277.

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 "Intertextualität in der Lyrik (zu Majakovskij 'Oda Revoljucii')." Wien er Slawisti­

scher Almanach 5, 5-23. 1983 "Intertextualität als Sinnkonstitution: Andrej Belyjs Petersburg und die 'fremden'

Texte." Poetica 15,66-107. 1984 "Ebenen des Intertextualitätsbegriffs." In Stierle/Warning, 133-138.

Lemke, Gerd 1973

Lodge, David

Untersuchungen zu Zitat und Zitiermethode im Werk des Literaturkritikers Albert Beguin. Bern, Frankfurt: Lang.

1977 The Modes 0/ Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology 0/ Litera­ture. London: Arnold.

Ludwig, Hans-Werner, ed. 1982 Arbeitsbuch Romananalyse. Tübingen: Narr.

Metschies, Michael 1966 Zitat und Zitierkunst in Montaignes Essais. Geneve: Droz.

Meyer, Herman 1967 Das Zitat in der Erzählkunst: Zur Geschichte und Poetik des europäischen 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

1982 "Translating the Past: Literary Allusions as Covert Criticism." Georgia Review 36, 639-651.

N athan, J acques 1969 Citations, re/erences et allusions de Marcel Proust dans A la recherche du temps

perdu. Paris: Nizet. Neumann, Peter Horst I

1980 "Das Eigene und das Fremde: Über die Wünschbarkeit 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 ofWiscon-

sin. 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 Ima­

go 41,117-128. Pfister, Manfred

1985 "Konzepte der Intertextualität." In Broich/Pfister, 1-30. Piett, Bettina

1986 Die Kunst der Allusion: Formen literarischer Anspielungen in den Romanen Theodor Fontanes. Köln: Böhlau.

T owards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion 163

Plett, Heinrich F. 1985 "Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In Broich/Pfister, 78-98. 1988 "The Poetics of Quotation. "In J. S. Petöfi/T. Olivi, eds. Von der verbalen Konstitu­

tion 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: Transtextualität 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. München: 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 1975

Rothe, Arnold

"Anspielungen: Zur Theorie der kulturellen Kommunikationseinheiten." Poetica 7, 115-134.

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 Ballyl Albert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.

Schaar, Claes 1975

1978

1982

Schmid, Wolf

"Vertical Context Systems. "In Hakan Ringbom, ed. Style and Text: Studies Pre­sen ted to Nils Enkvist. Stockholm: Sprakfarlaget, 146-157. "Linear Sequence, Spatial Structure, Complex Sign, and Vertical Context System." Poetics 7, 377-388. The Full Voic'd Quire Below: Vertical Context Systems in Paradise Lost. Lund: Gieerup.

1983 "Sinnpotentiale der diegetischen Allusion: Aleksandr Puskins Posthalternovelle und ihre Prätexte." In Schmid/Stempel, 141-187.

Schmid, Wolf/Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds. 1983 Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualität. Wien: Wiener Slawi­

stischer Almanach. Schulte-Middelich, Bernd

1985 "Funktionen intertextueller Textkonstitution." In Broich/Pfister, 197-242. Schweikle, Günther/Irmgard Schweikle

1984 Metzler Literatur Lexikon. Stuttgart: Metzler. Searle, J ohn R.

1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy 0/ Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Simon, Hans-Ulrich

1984 "Zitat." In Klaus Kanzogl Achim Masser, eds. Reallexikon der deutschen Literatur­geschichte. Vol. 4. Second Edition. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1049-1081.

164 U. Hebel

Stempel, Wolf-Dieter 1983 "Intertextualität und Rezeption." In Schmid/Stempel, 85-109.

Stierle, Karlheinz 1984 "Werk und Intertextualität." In Stierle/Warning, 139-150.

Stierle, Karlheinz/Rainer Warning, eds. 1984 Das Gespräch. München: Fink.

Stückrath, Jörn 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. Mün­

chen. 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. München: 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 of Allusion in Victorian Fiction. London: Macmillan.

Wilpert, Gero von 1979 Sachwörterbuch der Literatur. Sixth Edition. Stuttgart: Kröner.

Wolpers, Theodor, ed. 1986 Gelebte Literatur in der Literatur: Studien zu Erscheinungsformen und Geschichte

eines literarischen Motivs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wuthenow, Ralph-Rainer I

1980 Im Buch die Bücher oder: Der Held als Leser. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

T THEODOR VERWEYEN and GUNTHER WITTING

The Cento

A Form of Intertextuality from Montage to Parody

Aksit Göktürk . . 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 "daß ein fremder Text durch Zitat, Anspielung oder zumindest Indiz (auf allen Ebenen der jeweiligen Kodierung [ ... J)" has to be actually evoked; sub­sequently one argues "daß sich sowieso in jedem Text sein Grundmuster (z. B. 'realistischer Roman' oder 'Roman' überhaupt), seine Epoche oder gar bestimmte 'abendländische 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

erst nicht disziplinierbar, seine Polyvalenz irreduzibel" (Lachmann 1984, 134)1. Yet one should not surrender to this semantic branching without resistance. There have been attempts enough, one being, for example, a Munich conference on intertextuality in 1984. The distinction made there between "Einzeltextrefe­renz" and "Systemreferenz" (Broich 1985; Pfister 1985; Karrer 1985) offers enough opportunities for analyzing the simple forms of adaptation favoured by us, without entering into speculations concerning the "äußerste Randzone der Intertextualität" (Pfister 1985, 53).

Yet one should beware of premature conclusions even he re : On the basis of these differentiations one cannot formulate general statements about diverse procedures. There are certain forms of intertextuality which provide "sowohl eine Einzeltext- als auch eine Systemreferenz, " as Broich has pointed out (Broich 1985,49). Other forms may be characterized exclusively as "Einzeltext­referenz" or "Systemreferenz. "

An interesting case of references to individual texts is the cento, which is mentioned only cursorily by Broich (1985, 49) and other participants of the Munich conference (Plett 1985, 94; Karrer 1985, 109). But this should not come as a surprise. The cento is not anthologized representatively. Equally absent is a history of the term and its usage. Almost no positive, at least no reliable know­ledge exists as to the origin of the term and the specific way it was employed to characterize texts. Some examples will illustrate this. In the Deutsches Wörter­buch by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm the term "cento" is not even mentioned; it would have been due in the second volume published in the year 1860. Only the Neues deutsches Wörterbuch by Lutz Mackensen of 1953 has an entry "cento." Here the term is explained as "grie.chisch-Iateinisch. Flickgedicht aus Versen verschiedener Dichter; Flickarbeit" (Mackensen 1953,157). Best's dictionary of literary terminology contains the explanation: "ital. aus bunten Flecken zusam­mengesetzte Jacke des Harlekin"(Best 1986, 88). The East German Wörterbuch der Literaturwissenschaft reads: "griech.llat., aus Flicken zusammengenähte Kleidung oder Decke" (Träger 1986, 86). Analogously, Shipley makes the term derive from "L[ atin], patched cloth" (Shipley 1970, 40 f.). Fowler writes, und er the entry "pastiche" : "[ ... ] in its original Latin form it meant a garment or patchwork and, applied to literature, a poem made up by joining scraps from various authors." (Fowler 1973,139) There seems to exist somewhat of an ety­mological confusion about the cento.2

1 As long as the discourse of the intertextualists is supposed to represent a model of intertextuality the chances for disciplining the term are, as Lachmann thinks, slight indeed.

2 One glance into Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen AltertumswissenschaJt would have suf­ficed to find out that the term "cento" is of Greek origin-XEvtQOOV, in vulgar Greek also 'XEV"tOOV - and came into current usage with Plautus and Cato. The lexicographer explains the semantic development of the word as: "nach der aus bunten Flicken zusammengesetzten Decke oder Harlekinsjacke [ ... ] wird das aus entlehnten Versen und Vers teilen zusammengesetzte Gedicht benannt." (Crusius 1899, 1930; cf. also Lamacchia 1958, 207)

~ I The Cento 167

Yet compared to the arbitrary etymological ascriptions the terminological definitions are surprisingly constant. One of the most comprehensive explana­tions can be found in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics:

A poetic composition made up of passages selected from the work of some great poet of the past. Homer largely served this purpose in Gr.literature from the adaptations by Trygaeus of various lines in the Iliad and Odyssey (Aristophanes, Peace 1090-94) to the Homerokentrones of the Byzantine period. Similarly Virgil was the most popular source for centos in later Roman times. The oldest of those extant is the tragedy Medea by Hosidius Geta (2d c. A. D.), while the C. nuptialis of Ausonius and the C. Vergilianus ofProba (4th c. A. D.) are among others drawnfrom his work. Renaissance and later works of this kind included the It. Petrarca spirituale (1536) and the Eng. Cicero princeps (1608), which was a treatise, compiled from Cicero, on government. In the modern era may be mentioned a Shakespearean c. which appeared in English (Nov. 1919) and humorous centos which are occasionally published in popular literary reviews. (Preminger 1974, 112)3

Possible references to definitions in traditional historical poetic theory though are neglected.

Attempts at a historical description of the cento normally recur to a highly selective and very small textual corpus. Such an arbitrary approach to the topic is also demonstrated, unwittingly, by Reinhart Herzog. He makes the parodie cento end at the beginning of early modern times. This sudden demise is no less surprising than the alleged reason for it, the decline of mnemonic faculties de­pendent on a school curriculum which no longer stressed the memorizing of the classical writers (Herzog 1975, 13).4 Herzog's verdict, however, overlooks the fact that the educational system remained essentially the same until the end of World War 11. It may have been suggested by the highly selective cento collec­tion assembled by Octave Delepierre in his Tableau de la litterature du centon (1874/75)5 which he consulted. This evidently made hirn lose sight of the con­tinuance of the parodie cento tradition in modern times.

Epochal changes in literary his tory can be deduced from changes in the do­minant mood of the cento, from serious to comic. This is not only of historical but also of systematical interest.

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), Träger (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 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 geringfügigen Änderungen) 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 ursprünglichen 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.)

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~, ö flE ßQo'to~ Oil'tUOEV aVT]Q vux'tU eh' OQCPVULl1V, Ö'tE e' EÜÖOUOL ßQomL UAAOL, YUflVO~ U'tEQ x6Que6~ 'tE XUL aOJtLÖo~, OUö' EXEV EyxO~. xäv ö' UXEeEQflaVel1l;LcpO~ ULflU'tL' uutaQ EXEL'tU oiiQ6v tE XQOEl1XEV a:Jtllflova 'tE ALUQ6v tE.

My cruel-hearted mother, an evil mother to me - it pains me much, the wound that amortal man in­flic ted on me - in the dark night when other mortals sleep - naked, without a helmet and shield, nor had he a spear - and all his sword was bathed in hot blood - but after­wards he sent forth a gentle and harmless gale.

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.

The Cento 169

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 gewählt werden [konnten]" (Herzog 1975, 7). And because of its artistic poten­tial to group "ursprünglich inkohärente 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 Georgica8; they are joined almost imperceptibly, with only minor adjustments, strict1y following Ausonius's cento theory:

Salve, sancte parens, summi regnator Olympi, Quem primi colimus, coeloque ereboque potentem, Semper honos, nomenque tuum, tua magna voluntas, Imperium sine fine tuum, laudesque manebunt. Dona laboratae Cereris, noctesque diesque Da deinde, auxilioque leves quaecumque labori Debita erant nostro; jam fas est parcere genti; Nos tua progenies, atque haec exempla secutus, Atque idem casus, miseris succurrere disco. Nec segnem patiere animum tentare precando; Eripe me his, invicte, malis; haec omnia firma. (Delepierre 1874,219)

6 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).

7 It is also included in the Capiluporum Carmina (cf. Delepierre 1874,223). 8 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.

170 T. Verweyen, G. Witting

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:

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)

The reference to Hieronymus may indicate the extent of Proba's reputation which ranges from being held a model fit to be emulated to being considered a mere trifler. For Hieronymus rejected Proba's programme, which she expressed in the following verse of the proem of her cento: "Vergilium cecinisse loquar pia

9 A short excerpt can be found in Delepierre (1875, 2:304f.). 10 We would like to thank Mr. Christian Hogrebe of the Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Wolfenbüt­

tel, for his kind assistance.

~ i

I i

1

The Cento 171

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,

daß die von der absoluten Überlegenheit der homerischen Epen über alle andere griechische Dichtung überzeugten Autoren als gute und geistig rege Christen die Heilsgeschichte in einen möglichst kostbaren Rahmen fassen wollten.

And he compares these endeavours to the "sekundären Gold- und Sil­berrahmungen vieler Ikonen der orthodoxen Welt [ ... J, deren materieller Wert den künstlerischen zumeist übertrifft" (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 (Tübingen 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):

11 This edition is an excellent text to work with because of its complete references to the verses borrowed from Virgil.

12 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.

13 This opinion does not, of course, invalidate Herzog's interpretation of the "erbaulichen Motivierung" of the Cento Probae (Herzog 1975, 46-51).

172 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.

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 blühn," "Der Fischer," "Rechenschaft," "Der König von Thule," "Hier sind wir versammelt zu löblichem 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

The Cento 173

the author, in this case all of the quotations and all of the text are placed, to cite M. M. Bakhtin, "in spöttisch-fröhliche Anführungszeichen" (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 nämlich das Bürger- und Kleinbürgertum, das ich in meinem Umgang berührte, wieder in seiner ganzen feigen Arroganz und Verlogenheit sich restaurieren sah, reagierte ich mit Haß. Ich fühlte das Verlangen, diese patriotischen Gehröcke, die sich schon wieder, kaum, daß das Blut der Arbeiter getrocknet war, öffentlich 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 lächerlich machte. (Weinert 1964, 120)14

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 Blätter 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: Ä 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 confirmationl endorsement 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 In this very publication the "Einheitsvolkslied" is reprinted. - Cf. also VerweyenlWitting 1983, 118+294.

15 Cf. Verweyen/Witting 1983, 102f.+171 f.

174 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. " I.

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.

Bibliography

Ausonius 1883 "Cento Nuptialis." In Carolus Schenkl, ed. D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula. XXVIII.

MGH AA 5,2. Berlin: Weidmann. 1978 "Cento Nuptialis." In Sextus Prete, ed. Decimi MagniAusonii Burdigalensis Opus­

cula. XIX. Leipzig: Teubner. Bachtin, Michail M.

1969 Literatur und Karneval: Zur Romantheorie und Lachkultur. Ed. A. Kaempfe. Mün­chen: Hanser.

1979 Die Ästhetik des Wortes. Ed. R. Grübel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

The Cento 175

Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de/Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler 1981 Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.

Benet, William Rose, ed. 1948 The Reader's Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia of World Literature and the Arts. N ew

York: Thomas Y. CrowelL Best, Otto F.

1986 Handbuch literarischer Fach begriffe. 8th rev. ed. Frankfurt: Fischer. Bormann, Edwin

1885 "Goethe-Quintessenz (Allen citatenbedürftigen Gemüthern gewidmet)." Fliegende Blätter 83, no. 2107,190.

Broich, Ulrich 1985 "Zur Einzeltextreferenz." In U. Broich et al., eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funk­

tionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: May Niemeyer, 48-52. Burton, Robert

1932 The Anatomy of Melancholy. 3 vols. Ed. H. J ackson. London:J. M. Dent (rpt. 1961). Crusius, Otto

1899 "Cento." In Wissowa, Georg, ed. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Alter­tumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, rev. ed., 1929-1932.

Delepierre, Octave, ed. 1874/75 Tableau de la litterature du centon, chez les anciens et chez les modernes. 2 vols.

London: N. Trübner. Erasmus of Rotterdam

1961 "Adagia." In Opera omnia. Vol.2. Hildesheim: Olms. (= facsimile reprint of the 1703 Leiden edition)

Fabri, Andreas [Le Fevre aus Vetheuil, Andre] 1609 Centones, cum Diana, et iuvenilibus. Paris, 1609. (HAB Wolfenbüttel: 20.8

POETICA) Fowler, Roger, ed.

1973 A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms. London: Routledge & Kegan PauL Fuhrmann, Manfred

1969 Die Antike und ihre Vermittler: Bemerkungen zur gegenwärtigen Situation der Klassischen Philologie. Konstanz : Universitätsverlag.

Gerber, Gustav 1961 Die Sprache als Kunst. Pt. 2. Hildesheim: Olms. (Rpt. ofthe edition Berlin 1885)

Greek Anthology, The 1953-1958 Tr. W. R. Paton. 5 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP/London: W. Heinemann.

Helm, Rudolf 1906 Lucian und Menipp. Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner.

Herzog, Reinhart 1975 Die Bibelepik der lateinischen Spätantike: Formgeschichte einer erbaulichen Gat­

tung. VoL 1. München: W. Fink. Hieronymus

1910 Epistulae. Pt. 1. Ed. Isidorus Hilberg. Wien/Leipzig: F. Tempsky. (= CSEL 54) Hunger, Herbert

1978 Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Vol. 2. München: C. H. Beck. Iser, Wolfgang, ed.

1966 Immanente Ästhetik - Ästhetische Reflexion: Lyrik als Paradigma der Moderne. München: W. Fink.

Karrer, Wolfgang 1985 "Intertextualität als Elementen- und Struktur-Reproduktion." In U. Broich et al.,

eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Max . Niemeyer, 98-116.

176 T. Verweyen, G. Witting

Kloepfer, Rolf 1980 "Einige literaturwissenschaftlich relevante Grundlagen und Anwendungen des

'dialogischen Prinzips'." Paper presented at the symposium "Dialogizität 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. Dialogizität. München: W. Fink, 85-106.

Lachmann, Renate 1984 "Ebenen des Intertextualitätsbegriffs." In K. Stierle/R. Warning, eds. Das Gespräch.

München: 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. München: W. Fink. Lucian

1972 "Symposium." In M. D. Macleod, ed. Luciani Opera. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, 144-163.

Mackensen, Lutz 1953 Neues deutsches Wörterbuch. 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/Jürgen Rehbein, eds. Genres mineurs: Texte zur Theorie und Geschichte nichtkanonischer Literatur (vom 16.jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart). München: W. Fink, 35.

Pfister, Manfred 1985 "Zur Systemreferenz." In U. Broich et al., eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funk­

tionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 52-58. Plett, Heinrich F.

1985 "Sprachliche Konstituent~n einer intertextuellen Poetik." In U. Broich et al., eds. Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: 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. Zürich/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 Österreichischen Byzantistik 28, 29-49.

Träger, Claus, ed. 1986 VC:örterbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.

The Cento 177

Verweyen, TheodoriGunther Witting 1979 Die Parodie in der neueren deutschen Literatur: Eine systematische Einführung.

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1983 Deutsche Lyrik-Parodien aus dreijahrhunderten. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Weinert, Erich 1964 "10 Jahre an der Rampe." In W. Sellhorn/Li Weinert, eds. Die juckt es wieder! Ein

Vortragsbuch mit hundert Gedichten und drei Aufsätzen. Berlin: Volk & Welt, 119-148.

Witting, Gunther 1985 "Parodie als komisierende Textverai"beitung." Der Deutschunterricht 3716 (1985),

5-29.

Appendix

Text 1

EDWIN BORMANN

Goethe-Quintessenz. (Allen citatenbedürftigen Gemüthern gewidmet)

Ihr naht euch wieder? In die Ecke, Besen! Luft! Luft! Klavigo! Meine Ruh' ist hin. Der König rief: Ich bin ein Mensch gewesen: Das Ewig-Weibliche, das war mein Sinn. Ein deutscher Mann mag keinen Franzen leiden, Der and're hört von allem nur das Nein. Ich weiß 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, kühl bis an's Herz hinan. Prophete rechts - mein Herz, was soll das geben? Du sprichst ein großes Wort gelassen aus: Das Wasser rauscht in's volle Menschenleben, Ich denke dein, so oft er trank daraus.

Wenn ihr's nicht fühlt, ihr werdet's nicht erjagen: Der Page lief, man sieht doch wo und wie. Was hör' ich draußen? Fräulein, darf ich's wagen? Grau, theurer Freund, ist alle Theorie. Heißt mich nicht reden, schwankende Gestalten! Man merkt die Absicht, dunkler Ehrenmann! Durch Feld und Wald laßt mir herein den Alten: Ich kenne dich, du siehst mich lächelnd an.

Er sah ihn stürzen, himmlisches Behagen! Der Knabe kam und ward nicht mehr geseh'n. Die Sonne sinkt, du mußt 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 muß sich dabei doch was denken lassen?! Ergo bibambus! ist des Pudels Kern.

178 T. Verweyen, G. Witting

Text 2

ERICH WEINERT

Einheitsvolkslied

Stimmt an mit hellem, hohem Klang! Nun muß sich alles wenden. Wer nicht liebt Wein, Weib und Gesang Mit Herzen, Mund und Händen.

Das Wandern ist des Müllers Lust. Was blasen die Trompeten? Wir treten mutig Brust an Brust Zum Beten, ja zum Beten.

Stolz weht die Flagge schwarzweißrot An uns und allen Dingen. Wir sterben gern den Heldentod. Es muß uns doch gelingen.

Ich schieß den Hirsch im wilden Furst. Wie brennt mein Eingeweide! Ein frischer Trunk, ein deutscher Durst Im Wald und auf der Heide.

Ich steh allein auf weiter Flur. o Täler weit, 0 Höhen! Drum Brüder, reicht die Hand zum Schwur! Sie blieb von selber stehen.

Ein freies Leben führen wir. Ich trage, wo ich gehe, Ein treues, deutsches Herz bei mir. Was kommt dort von der Höhe? •.

Die Lerche schmettert himmelan. Es geht von Mund zu Munde. Der Kaiser ist ein lieber Mann " In einem kühlen Grunde.

111. Historical Aspects of Intertextuality

RICHARD J. SCHOECK

'In loco intertexantur'

Erasmus as Master of Intertextuality

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 Fränkel(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 Fränkel 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

1 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).

2 I am indebted to the books of L. P. Wilkinson on Latin poetry, as weil as the studies of Fränkel and Martindale cited in the bibliography.

3 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 intertextüalities, 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.

4 See Screech's edition of Rabelais (1964) and Cave (1979). 5 On the multiple dimensions of metaphors in literary theory see R. J. Schoeck (1968). 6 My studies of Erasmian intertextualities may be seen first, in an initiating effort, in Intertextual­

ity and Renaissance Texts (1984), in a deepening fashion in Erasmus Grandescens (1988 b), and continuing in my forthcoming biography of Erasmus.

7 As an example of the cross-art I would cite Holbein's The Ambassadors, which owes a recogniz­able debt to Erasmian texts and which in its programme (foregrounding in the painting the tools and instruments of the liberal arts) manifests the vitality of humanistic values; or Rembrandt's Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer in the next century. As an example of the interdisci­plinary, one may think of the workings of perspective in theories of art as well as in literature. See further Schoeck (1983).

~ !

'In loco intertexantur' 183

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

(Prolegomena: Proinde si scite & in loco intertexantur9 adagia, futurum est ut sermo totus, & antiquitatis ceu stellulis quibusdam luceat, & figurarum arrideat c?loribus, ~ sentententiarum niteat gemmulis, & festivitatis cupediis blan­dlatur: demque novitate excitet, brevitate delectet, auctoritate persuadeat. LB 1703, II, 8.) . Let us begin with the earliest of Erasmus' writings, a letter dated provisionally In 1484, when Erasmus was probably 17.10 In this early letter Erasmus writes that he i~ "one of the kind who worry in case the sky should fall." The phrase surfaces In the collection of adages which Erasmus published in 1500, the Collec­tane~ Adagiorum, which is the earliest form of a work which continued to grow and In 1508 became the Chiliades Adagiorum. ll The tide of this adage is Quid si coelum ruat? and it comes from Terence in the H eautontimorumenos, one of the ~choolboy texts which Erasmus had virtually by heart and which he again cites In a later letter of 1487. I think, and I have argued elsewhere, that Erasmus was already keeping a commonplace book at this early age, for it was a conventional thing urged by humanist educators; and his 1500 collection of adages - his first published book - is most probably drawn from a commonplace book. But none of Erasmus' commonplace books, I must add, is extant.

In the same letter of 1484, our earliest extant letter in a correspondence that numbers more than 3,000 letters, of which sixteen hundred are by Erasmus, Erasmus go es on to say, "Meanwhile, as Ovid has it, 'time flies by on winged feet,'" a quotation from the Ars amatoria 3.65, another text weIl known to the

8 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.

9 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.

10 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.

11 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 ...

these lines suggest the allusive or evocative tenor of the Epitaphium. One letter does not build a case or support too broad a generalization. How­

ever, I would suggest that the letter to the daughter - to Elizabeth, a nun -should be read together with the oratio and epitaph. Then the intertextualities can be seen to be broad enough and inclusive of Christi an as weIl as classical points of reference. We can only guess at the specific occasion for the letter to Elizabeth, but we can safely infer that she had read the other two texts. Beyond that, the key remains concealed in the reference in the first lines of Erasmus' response: "Dearest sister in Christ, your letter has been delivered to me. [And] it

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.

eIn loeo intertexantur' 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 See eWE 31: I iv 51, I iv 48, and 11 iv 40. 14 See Phillips (1964), "General eharaeteristies of theAdages."

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 l 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, Wolfenbüttel, 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

15 Phillips (1964), 38-39. 16 See Schoeck, "Intertextuality and the Rhetoric Canon" (1988 a). This problem quite obviously

requires much further discussion.

'In loco intertexantur' 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 J ohn 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 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."

18 This is in Eco's terminology "over-coding": see Eco (1976),133-135.

188 R. J. Schoeck

accompanied by a woodcut or engraving symbolically expressing the meaning of the words; the explication was usually in verse. As the form of the emblem developed there were often linguistic intertextualities, with the motto in one language, for example, and the explication in another. At times (especially with the J esuits in the seventeenth century) emblems were instruments for teaching of languages or moral instruction.19

There are other ways to identify and study the workings of intertextuality in Erasmus. One such way would be to take a single work and to explore it fully. For purposes of this paper I should call attention to intertextuality in what is probably Erasmus' earliest work (other than letters and poems), his De Con­temptu M undi. This is a work which he began in the monastery, in his early twenties, but did not publish until many years later. A rejection of the world, like a renunciation of the self, may be done for a number of motives; and Eras­mus seems to have been most influenced by Petrarch's attitude that regarded the world as detrimental to fulfillment of one's own personality, more than an em­phasis on hating sin, embracing penance, and seeking grace as one finds in St. Bernard and Innocent IU. It may perhaps be best seen, as Tracy (1972, 32) suggests, as making the strongest case possible for monasticism. But Erasmus, as we know from external evidence, kept recasting this early work - changing the form of declamatio to that of dialogue, and years later adding a final chapter that condemns abuses and excesses of monasticism - all this makes it perilous to press too closely upon this work as evidence of the monastic years. "Thus, he appa­rently sought in the monastery security to pursue his studies, deliverance from the vulgar crowd and peace of conscience. This is the ideal of De Contemptu Mundi" (Tracy 1972, 37). ,.

There are, then, formal intertextualities in the writing of a work that con­demns certain aspects of the world, and Erasmus par consequent establishes and calls into discussion relations wi'th the works of Innocent IU, Petrarch, and Dionysus the Carthusian. It is of interest that Innocent had cited averse from Juvenal (xiv. 139) which was also cited by Erasmus (see PL 217/720A and LB V, 1243 EF, as noted by Tracy 1972, 40n.). Such borrowings and cross-markings are the traces left of readings and subsequent intertextualities.

We easily recognize the employment of Matthew 11 :29-30: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Yoke here is a code-word, for rabbinical teaching spoke of the yoke of the Law.) And we note the references to J erome, Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Lactantius, Thomas, and Albert: a movement from the Gospels to the Church Fathers to medieval masters. There are also interesting resonances of Valla's De Voluptate,

19 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).

'In loco intertexantur' 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 Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. Bern/ München: Francke, 1948).

Ducrot, Oswald/T. Todorov 1979 Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language. Baltimore, Md.: J ohns Hop­

kins UP (French orig. 1972). Eco, Umberto

1976 A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP. Erasmus

1974

1982

Ette,Ottmar

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 of Toronto Press.

1985 "Intertextualität. Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmer­kungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte, 497-519.

Forster, Leonard 1974 Dichten in fremden Sprach~n. München: Fink.

Fränkel, 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.

'In loco intertexantur' 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.

1983 "'Lighting a Candle to the Place': On the Dimensions and Implications of Imitatio in 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: ASSOC1-ated University Presses, 98-112. ." . .

1988 b Erasmus Grandescens: The Growth of a Humanist's Mmd and Spmtualtty. Nleuw-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

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space

Intertextuality in Milton's Samson Agonistes

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 J enny 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 a la Renaissance est aussi une invite a une 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-

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 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:

With inward eyes illuminated His fiery virtue roused From under ashes into sudden flame, And as an evening dragon came, Assailant on the perched roosts, And nests in order ranged Of tarne villatic fowl [ ... J. (1689-95)

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 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 aJ udaic 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 thy 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

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 197

redemption, deliverance or ransom. It is as if the intertext available to the users of these words in the play excludes a large portion of the intertext available for a later reader to consult. Michael Riffaterre in a passage of analysis describes the effect of certain words as being that of

signs which have the primary function, at the level of significance, of telling the reader there is a latent intertext at work. These connectors work by triggering presuppositions, by compelling the reader to recognise that the text makes sense only by reference to meanings found neither within the verbal context nor within the author's idiolect but within an intertext (1984, 148).

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

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 röle-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

1 I

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 199

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).

Their understanding of what constituted right heroic behaviour in the service of God appeared to have been mistaken. For many revolutionaries, Samson had symbolised the Good Old Cause and the N ew Model Army. N ow it was neces­sary to re-read the text of the Samson story and remember, perhaps, that he had achieved nothing for the deliverance of Israel. In The Experience o[ Defeat, Christopher Hill has measured the bitterness of that defeat and beautifully illus­trated the ways in which it was dealt with. Yet he insists that Milton did not turn away from politics to pacifism as the Quakers did, spiritualising his conception of God's kingdom on e;uth. "Milton's thinking thus in a sense represents a dead end, with its blind assertion that good will triumph" (318). Yet HilI, like Low and Bennett and Radzinowicz, often draws illustration for Milton's thinking from works written many years before the collapse of the Revolution. In the later works the poet does remark, as the Bible instructs hirn to, that we should hate the enemies of God and so on, but counters this heavily with warnings against force and violence, and with exhortations to teach and persuade whenever possible rather than compel or punish.

The deeply anibiguous nature of the poem produced in these circumstances can best be appreciated by the intertextualist. One of the most important cruxes in the text is the moment when Samson suddenly revers es his refusal to go to the temple of Dagon, indicating to his Israelite companions that he is impelled by God to do so:

I begin to feel Some rousing motions in me which dispose To something extraordinary my thoughts (1381-83).

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

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-

1 :

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 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

a tarnished Samson - a Samson who, nurtured in blood, delights in vengeance and whose enterprise entails the wretched interchange of wrong for wrong" (244-5). These citations will serve as examples of the hugely different responses the text evokes. Each reader seems to have selected a pattern from a mosaic that contains many other patterns, without considering whether the meaning might not include all the patterns. "Si l'on veut rester attentif au pluriel d'un texte [ ... ], il faut bien renoncer a structurer ce texte par grandes masses [ ... ] point de con­struction du texte: tout signifie sans cesse et plusieurs fois, mais sans delegation a un grand ensemble final, a une structure derniere" (Barthes 1970, 18). The truth seems to be that the author is not trying to sponsor one possible meaning for the behaviour of his prot~gonist but that he co-operates with the intertextual multi­plicity of possible motivations for behaviour and possible divine judgments of the actions and sayings of Samson and his companions. The text has been shaped to allow for many possible responses. The author is especially sensitive to this: "Le propre de l'intertextualite est d'introduire a un nouveau mode de lecture qui fait eclater la linearite du texte [ ... ] etoilant le texte de bifurcations qui en ouv­re nt peu a peu l'espace semantique" Genny 1976, 266).

The imitation of a Biblical pre-text is an especially interesting case in the poet­ics of imitation. The dynamics were different from those involved in the retelling of a fictional story or the fictionalisation of an historical event. They are not quite like those described by Gerard Genette in his discussion of the relationship of a hypotext like the Odyssey to hypertexts like the Aeneid or Joyce's Ulysses. However, the seventeenth century Christian author did not treat a Biblical hy­potext as either fictional or historical. lt had an absolute factual validity that the "truth" of human his tory did not haye in a sinful, doomed world in which the evidence of the senses is misleadi~g, specious, illusory. The main pre-text, in Judges, sets up certain expectations because of the force of Scriptural sanctions: Samson is aN azarite, he is sacred fb God, there are angelic predictions about his future achievements, his strength is above human and its mysterious location in his hair indicates divine intervention, especially when it is restored. The implica­tions of the story for a seventeenth century Christian are worth examining, particularly the case of the revolutionary who believed it was possible to estab­lish Christ's kingdom on earth by force in 1650 but who turned away from force to a spiritualisation of hope after 1660, as the Quakers did, when most revolu­tionary optimism died. The presuppositions in the minds of such readers were richly contradictory and have been weIl set out by F. M. Krouse (1974) andJ. W. Wittreich (1986). Krouse amasses commentaries over the centuries that lead hirn to emphasise "Samson's zealous heroism, his confidence in his calling as a champion of God, and his readiness as a saint to end ure dark captivity with patience and suffer martyrdom with fortitude" (99n). Wittreich stresses evi­dence that the significance of Samson in the seventeenth century grows increas­ingly ambiguous. Once regarded as a plague to the uncircumcised, Samson now appears to be a plague to his own people. His story, previously cast as a saint's life, continues to figure in such literature, but now to mark the fall and mortifica-

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 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:

what can be worse Than to dweIl here, driven out from bliss, condemned In this abhorred deep to utter woe. (PL 2.85-7)

/

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.

Creative Indirection in Intertextual Space 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." Criticalln­

quiry 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 1971 "Samson Agonistes as Tragedy." InJ. A. WittreichJr., ed. Calm 0/ Mind. Cleveland:

Case Western Reserve Up, 235-257. Scott-Craig, T. S. K.

1952 "Concerning Milton's Samson." Renaissance News 5, 45-53. Seneca

1920 Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Ed. T. E. Page et al. Tr. R. M. Gummere. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP/London: Heinemann.

Shawcross, J ohn T. 1971 "Irony as Tragic Effect: Samson Agonistes and the Tragedy of Hope. "In J. A.

WittreichJr., ed. Calm 0/ Mind. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve Up, 289-306. Stein, Arnold

1957 Heroic Knowledge. Minneapolis: University ofMinneapolis Press. Ulreich, John c.,Jr.

1983 "'Beyond the Fifth Act': Samson Agonistes as Prophecy." Milton Studies 17, 281-318.

Verrier, Jean 1976 . "Segalen lecteur de Segalen." Pohique 27, 338-350.

Wittreich, J oseph A. 1986 lnterpreting "Samson Agonistes". Princeton: Princeton UP.

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

How Postmodern is Intertextuality?

1. Postmodernism and Intertextuality

Let me admit at the outset: I am not a postmodernist. To flourish a labellike that, my awareness of the glibness of such labelling and my scepticism with respect to such all-comprehensive constructions of history would have to 'be less well developed. Above all, some vers ions of this concept are inspired by at­titudes towards contemporary reality that I find extremely dubious, and the whole range of versions of postmodernism covers too divergent constructions of the relationship between past and present to invite wholesale acceptance (Pütz/Freese 1984). The reasons why this concept has been coined and why it has become so wide-spread as a journalistic label are readily understandable; after all, "Modernism", which has so emphatically dedicated itself to being con­temporary and topical, cannot last for six, eight, or ten decades without losing its provocative powers and "deteriorating" into "Classical Modernism". Still, as much as I can understand the necessity of a new concept for new kinds of con­temporaneity, I find it difficult to subsurne altogether divergent constructions of contemporaneity under the one heading of postmodernism.

Concerning the relationship between modernism and postmodernism at least three different and quite heterogeneous notions compete with each other. The first, which tends to take architecture as its paradigm, regards postmodernism as arevisionist movement, as the attempt to undo modernism, in this instance the functionalism of the Bauhaus school, and to return to a syncretistic style re­echoing the architectonic forms of previous periods and even re-employing or­nament, once, in the heyday of modernism, castigated as a crime by the influen­tial Adolph Loos. A second version of postmodernism, for which Leslie Fiedler may serve as an example, sees postmodernism not as modernism undone, but as a breaking away from modernism, a breach with modernism as with all things of the past, arevolt that is orientated towards the future and has its roots in the trivial mythologies of the mass media and pop culture, and not, as modernism had, in the onerous burden of history and its cultural heritage (Fiedler 1971 and 1975). The third version, that of, for example, Ihab Hassan, Gerald Graff and Jean-Fran<;ois Lyotard (Hass an 1971, Graff 1973, Lyotard 1979), presents post­modernism as the logical extension and culmination of modernism, as one further and final turning of the screw of the process of modernization which set in in the 19th century if not earlier.

208 M. Pfister

If there is a common denominator at all to these different constructions of postmodernism, it is in the element of the parasitic: Postmodernist culture pre­sents itself as a playful mise en scene of pre-given materials and devices, and these may be taken either from the imaginary museum of historical styles, from con­sumer society's storehouse of pop artefacts yet untouched by High Culture o ameson 1984), or from the repertoire of modernist aesthetics and practices. In a world experienced as totally contingent and random; under the setting sun of the fin de millenaire, when history appears to have reached its end and when all that seems to be possible is some post-historical afterpiece, some carnivalesque postlude; in a political blind alley, in which the economical, ecological and ideological contradictions, particularly in the most advanced Western societies, increasingly come to be regarded as inaccessible to, and insoluble by, rational analysis and instrumental planning; on a level of consciousness that no longer allows us to regard reality as something to be experienced directly and immedi­ately, as it reaches us always pre-structured by language, pre-formed by culture and filtered through mass media - in such a situation, in which "so etwas wie ein unbesprochener, freier Naturraum so gut wie undenkbar geworden ist" (Schöpp 1985, 333), a new Alexandrinianism of quotation, parody and travesty must arise, that plays its se rene, intoxicated or despairing games with the left­overs of the cultural heritage and the garbage of the cultural industry. "Lost in the Funhouse" : this is J ohn Barth' s metaphor for this state of consciousness, that is at once euphoric and disconcerting (Barth 1968). Lost in a maze of mirrors: thus Barth's hero Ambrose reels through a labyrinth of fictions reflecting each other, through a world in which "mirror on mirror mirrored is all the show" (Yeats 1950,375). In such a situation <J.,rt and literature can no Ion ger be a simple reflection of reality, the traditionalispeculum vitae and mirror held up to nature, since they turn into distorting mirrors reflecting other mirror-images and pro­ject further reflections in this wilderness of mirrors.

The production of art and literature under these auspices becomes a recycling of waste material rather than an act of creation; it turns into a "Technologie verbrauchten symbolischen Wissens" and a "recycling des Bedeutungsabfalls" , to quote Botho Strauß' metaphors drawn from nuclear technology (Strauß 1977, 85). This development has not occurred in a theoretical vacuum; it was actually accompanied by a particular theory legitimizing it and redefining the status of texts and their producers. This theory is the theory of intertextuality, which arose in France in the context of the cultural revolution of '68 and was avidly taken over by American postmodernists. In the same year 1967, in which Julia Kristeva first coined, or rather made current, the word intertextualite (Kristeva 1967), the American novelist and professor of literature John Barth announced that we have entered a new phase in literary history , a phase dominated by the "Literature of Exhaustion" (Barth 1982), a terminal phase in which all creative impetus is spent and in which originality will only survive in the form of sophis­ticated games with extant texts and traditional structures, i. e. in the form of allusion, quotation, parody and collage. The intentions behind Kristeva's and

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 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.)

By now, intertextuality has become the very trademark of postmodernism. One of the most influential propagators, if not the inventor, of postmodernism, Ihab Hassan, regards the awareness that originality in these late days in history can only reside in a novel dealing with second-hand material, as the hallmark of a postmodernism caught in the compulsion to repeat endlessly and in ever new ways wh at has been thought and said before (Hassan 1982). Leslie Fiedler, Gerald Graff and the other spokesmen in the American debate over the existence and essence of postmodernism agree with hirn. A distanced observer from Europe, Douwe W Fokkema, also agrees and defines postmodernism in terms of intertextuality: "The Postmodernist is convinced that the social context con­sists of words, and that each new text is written over an older one" (Fokkema 1984, 46). Fokkema traces this image of the palimpsest, of a text that lies hidden beneath another one, back to Edmund Wilson's 1931 description of Joyce's "Work in Progress" - which was to be co me Finnegans Wake - as a palimpsest and, by doing so, he turns J oyce' s work into a postmodernist text avant la lettre; he might also have referred to Pound's last "Canto", that apostrophizes in retro­spect the whole cycle of the Cantos as one huge and multi-Iayered palimpsest (Pound 1975, 797).

But, if that is the case, if, indeed, postmodernism and intertextuality are trea­ted as synonymous these days, why then ask "How Postmodern is Intertextual­ity?" Why disturb the consensus of writers, critics and literary historians ? WeIl, putting this question is in any case worthwile because intertextuality, although the concept has been coined under the auspices of postmodernism, is a

210 M. Pfister

phenomenon that is not restricted to postmodernist writing at all. From the earliest traceable origins onwards, literary texts have always referred not only to reality (imitatio vitae), but also to previous other texts (imitatio veterum), and the various intertextual practices of alluding and quoting, of paraphrasing and translating, of continuation and adaptation, of parody and travesty flourished in periods long before postmodernism, for instance in late classical Alexandria, in the Renaissance, in Neoclassicism and, of course, in "classical" Modernism. The question to be asked, therefore, is whether there is a specifically postmodernist type of intertextuality, whether postmodernism employs intertextuality in a specific way, with specific strategies and functions, that would allow us to dis­tinguish postmodernist intertextuality from previous forms of intertextuality, and in particular from those of modernism. A further problem entailed in my question is, that the concept of intertextuality is at least as much under debate as that of postmodernism, and that we have to deal again with a number of rivalling notions. I will, therefore, first attempt to sort out the two major schools of thought, before laddress myself to the question of a specifically postmodernist intertextuality. (The following chapter is based on Pfister 1985, 1-30).

2. Intertextuality: Structuralist and Poststructuralist

To startwith, one has to bear in mind that Kristeva's concept of intertextuality is descriptive rather than programmatic. This distinguishes the original meaning of the concept from the use made of it in the context of the American debate about postmodernism. According to her t.~eory all texts are intertextual, not only modernist or postmodernist texts~ and her concept, therefore, aims at charac­terizing the ontological status of texts in general. In the American debate, on the other hand, there has been a shift·in emphasis from the descriptive to the pro­grammatic and from the ontological to the historical: intertextuality now de­notes an ideal norm aspired to by the postmodernist text.

In Europe, too, a refocussing of the concept has occurred, but of a rather different kind. Here structuralist critics have remonstrated against Kristeva and her followers that an all-comprehensive concept of intertextuality is of little use when it comes to interpreting individual texts or specific groups of texts (Hemp­fer 1976, 53-55; Hempfer 1983, 14-18; Kloepfer 1982; Stierle 1983). Adopting the term, they have narrowed down its meaning from Kristeva's general princi­pIe of texts presupposing other texts, to the set of devices with which one text pointedly refers to another, its "pretext". Only those references count as inter­textual that are clearly intended by the author, distinctly marked in the text and recognized and realized by the reader. In this structuralist version of intertextu­ality the author retains authority over his text, the unity and autonomy of the text remain intact, and the reader does not get lost in a labyrinthine network of possible references but realizes the author's intentions by decoding the signals and markers inscribed into the text. Gerard Genette in his impressive study

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 211

Palimpsestes: La litterature au second degre (Genette 1982) has, so far, pursued this structuralist approach to intertextuality with more systematic rigour a~d cogency than anyone else, working out a coherent classification of the various intertextual devices and illustrating them with examples taken from a vast range of texts from all periods and many different nationalliteratures.

Seen from the poststructuralist perspective co-inaugurated by Kristeva, such a reduction of intertextuality to distinct and pointed references from one par­ticular text to another runs counter to the vitally expansive nature,of this princi­pIe. It is no more than a futile academic attempt to tarne the indomitable, a bourgeois attempt to defuse its explosive and revolutionary potential that aims to expose all notions of autonomy and unity of the subject and the text as ideological fictions. After all, when Kristeva coined this term her intention was not to provide a new heading for the various forms of allusion and quotation and to stimulate more subtle and systematic classifications, but to revolutionize our notions of art, literature, text and subjectivity.

This radical and explosive potential already characterized the pre-history of the concept, its roots in Mikhail Bakhtin's concept of "dialogicity" or "dialog­isrn" . Kristeva coined her own concept in the light of a theoretical model that the Soviet-Russian critic had worked out during the cultural revolution of the Twenties and elaborated in a number of historical studies on Menippean satire, on carnival and on the novel. His primary concern here was with the "dialogue of voices" within one text, - a dialogue that undermines the authority of any single voice - and with the "polyphony" of each utterance, which results from the fact that "each concrete word (the utterance) always finds the objects, to which it refers, already overlaid by previous utterances, disputes and evalua­tions", "overshadowed by some hazy mist of words or, on the contrary, illumi­nated by other words said about it previously" (Bachtin 1979, 169; my transla­tion). The polyphonic novel, for instance, sets up a "microcosm of the plurality of voices" and as such it can encapsulate the totality of the "socio-ideological voices of an epoch" (Bachtin 1979, 290; my translation). Therefore, the dialogue within one text is at the same time a dialogue with all the voices outside it, from the Billingsgate of the market and the profane and desecrating voices of carnival, to the voices of authority and of canonized literary pretexts.

Kristeva was attracted to Bakhtin's theory because it allowed her to go be­yond a static structural model for literary texts. In her view, such a "dynamisa­tion du structuralisme" is only possible, if one assurnes with Bakhtin, that

le 'mot litteraire' n'est pas un point (un sens fixe), mais un croisement de surfaces textuelIes, un dialogue de plusieurs ecritures: de l'ecrivain, du destinataire (ou du personnage), du contexte culturel actuel ou anterieur. (Kristeva 1969,144)

Bakhtin's concept of dialogism is, for Kristeva, qu,ntessentially dynamic, even revolutionary, and what it tried to revolutionize dynamically was not only structuralism but cultural politics in general. Bakhtin, in propagating the relativ­ity of each single position, the self-criticism of each word, the undermining of all

212 M. Pfister

dogmatic and official monologism, the carnivalesque profanization of all that is sacred and the subversion of all authority, was fighting against the increasing rigidity of post-revolutionary Soviet cultural politics and the doctrinary canoni­zation of Socialist Realism. He was, in fact, continuing the revolutionary strug­gle against increasing repression.

It was the explosive potential of Bakhtin's criticism of ideological monolog­ism that fascinated Kristeva and other writers and critics of the Tel Quel circle in the late Sixties, and they, in turn, employed Bakhtin's concept of dialogism in their own struggle against the "bourgeois" ideology of the autonomy and unity of individual consciousness and the self-contained meaning of texts. In that, they even went beyond Bakhtin: Whereas for Bakhtin dialogism was a quality of particular, and particularly valuable texts (Menippean satire, Rabelais, Shake­speare, Dostoevsky), for them it is a feature of all texts:

tout texte se construit comme mosaique de citations, tout texte est absorption et transformation d'un autre texte. A la place de la notion d'intersubjectivite s'installe eelle d'intertextualite, et le langage poetique se lit, au moins, comme double. (Kristeva 1969a, 146)

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 Grübel1983, 221; my translation)

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 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 ideological·machinery, the confusing din of the media and the subconscious promptings or the clamour of consumerism. Taken together these components

214 M. Pfister

conjure up the image of a "universe of texts" (Grivel1978), in which all these subjecdess texts refer in a regressus ad infinitum to other texts and, in principle, to all other texts. All of them, mere fragments of the one "texte general" (Derrida 1973,310), converge with history and reality, which in turn only exist for us in texualized form. This view precludes two notions : firsdy that of a sign referring to reality and secondly that of reality itself existing naturally and untextualized, independent of semiotic processes. No wonder, therefore, that the most ad­vanced deconstructors, Derrida and his American followers, reduce the bi-polar semiotic relationship of signifier and signified to the signifier alone, with the consequent reduction of all communication to a free play of the signifiers (Cow­ard/Ellis 1977, 122-126; Warning 1983, 298-300). A giddying perspective, in­deed, an apocalyptic vision - and for that very reason so fascinating to a post­modern consciousness, that sees itself at the end of all history, cut off from any imaginable future that would be more than the prolongation of the ongoing endgame, the posdude to history !

3. Postrrtodernist I ntertextuality

My thesis is: Postmodernist intertextuality is the intertextuality conceived and realized within the framework of a poststructuralist theory of intertextuality. With this definition the historical specificity of postmodernist intertextuality becomes a matter of categorical, rather than quantitative distinction. If, on the other hand, one tried to define postmodernist intertextuality only in terms of an increase in intertextual references, tlJe difference between, say, modernist and postmodernist intertextuality cou~d only be a relative one, and central works of classical mödernism such as Eliot's The Waste Land, Pound's Cantos or Joyce's Ulysses would have to be promoted to the status of postmodernist works avant la lettre.

Postmodernist intertextuality within a framework of poststructuralist theory means that here intertextuality is not just used as one device amongst others, but is foregrounded, displayed, thematized and theorized as a central constructional principle. One relevant sociological context for this auto-reflective self-con­sciousness of postmodernist intertextuality is the unprecedented boom in liter­ary studies, criticism and theory at most academic establishments of the Western world, and in particular in the United States. In this context a theoretically naive, less self-conscious literature - a "raw" literature as opposed to a "cooked" -could hardly survive or would be marginalized as trivial. An academic system that produces more literary theory, or even more Hamlet interpretations, than anyone can digest, encourages a type of literary production that is equally self­reflective and self-conscious, a literature, so to speak, that grows out of graduate seminars and provides them again with new material for analysis and research.

The key-figures of American literary postmodernism - Barth, Barthelme, Federman, Pynchon & Company- all belong to the academic establishment or,

r !

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 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-

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 217

ticular device, which I consider to be a further specific feature of postmodernist intertextuality and which I would like to call the "quoted quotation" (Smirnov 1983) or the "quotation to the second power".

Quoting a quotation or raising a quotation to the second power is a device that in itself foregrounds intertextuality and substantiates the poststructuralist view, according to which each text refers to pretexts and those in turn refer to others and so on ad infinitum. When Laughlin, in his poem, quotes Gerard de Nerval's "EI Desdichado" - "J'ai reve dans la grotte Oll nage la sirene" - he quotes at the same time a famous quotation of this verse in Eliot's "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" - "I have lingered in the chambers of the sea". A similar superimposi­tion of intertextual levels occurs, when Laughlin opens his poem by quoting from Catullus' "Carmen 101" the verse "Multas per gentes et multa per aequora vectus" ("I travelled through many countries and over many seas") and then continues with "et multas per vias quoque aereas" ("and on the air-ways, too"). The intertextual reference to Catullus is here mediated and fractured through a modern prism - that of Robert Fitzgerald, the American translator of Catullus, to whom Laughlin owes this topical continuation of the original verse. Most of the quotations to be quoted again by Laughlin come, however, from Ezra Pound. Laughlin quotes the poems of Cavalcanti and Bertrand de Born (192, 194), translated and frequendy quoted or alluded to by Pound, and the Homeric words "periplum" and "polumetis" are also mediated through Pound's Cantos, where they feature as key concepts. Even Beckett's Waitingfor Godot and End­game enter Laughlin's text through the back door of Poundian commentary: "C'est moi dans la poubelle" (194). As the poem unfolds we realize that it is, on one level at least, ahornage to Ezra Pound, another "deconstructed man". It is therefore fitting that it ends with a prayer over his grave: "lie quiet Ezra there in your campo santo on San Michele" (194). And even this final gesture opens up whole vistas of intertextuallevels: Pound's first "Canto", which concludes with ahornage to Andreas Divus ("Lie quiet Divus"); this Renaissance scholar's La­tin translations of Homer; Pound' s essay on "Early Translators of Homer" and, finally, Homer's text, particularly the nekuia-episode in the 11th canto, which, according to Pound, reaches back to the oldest myths of mankind, to the "hinter-time" beyond all history and all texts. This is not just "quotation to the second power", but at least to the fourth.

Having defined postmodernist intertextuality as self-consciously fore­grounded intertextuality, as intertextuality theoretically conceptualized within the works themselves, we have, at the same time, defined postmodernism as a further development and radicalization of modernism. In that, we find ourselves in agreement with Jean-Fran<;ois Lyotard, for whom postmodernism is "un­doubtedly apart of the modern", or, to quote Fredric Jameson's interpretation of Lyotard, "a moment in the perpetual 'revolution' and innovation of high modernism ( ... ), a cyclical moment that returns before the emergence of ever new modetnisms in the stricter sense" (Lyotard 1984, 79 and xvi). Adefinition of this kind, being entirely concerned with the immanent diachronic relation-

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

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 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 "Warenästhetik" (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[ J oseph 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 "Erlkönig" 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

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 221

Feininger patterns by a sophisticated choreography of light, and featuring characters that move with lofty gestures in their trecento costumes, amongst them Heracles, half uncouth country yokel, half baroque hero (or the parody of one).

The collaboration between Wilson and the dramatist Heiner Müller- he also a great intertextualist - since the CIVIL WarS project has further intensified the intertextual character of his theatre work and widened the range of pretexts brought into play. At the same time, both Müller's share in the Cambridge Alcestis and Wilson's New York and Hamburg productions of Müller's Ham­letmaschine (both 1986) have shown that Wilson and Müller are intertextualists of a very different grain. In a way, their collaboration is based on a misunder­standing, even if this misunderstanding has turned out to be extremely produc­tive. Where Müller's collages of heterogeneous textual materials always serve a pointed critical function in exposing ideological illusions and delusions, Wil­son's eclecticism remains a self-enamoured l'art pour l'art of fascinating beauty and irritating strangeness.

This difference and tension between Müller's sense and Wilson's sensuous­ness, between Müller's acid aggressiveness and Wilso:l's suggestive charm in their respective ways of dealing with the textual materials and discourse types, handed down by tradition, can be understood in a wider perspective as epitomizing the difference between the deconstructivist theory of intertextual­-tf developed in Europe and the practice of intertextuality characteristic of American postmodernism. While Bakhtin, Kristeva and the Tel Quel group have evolved their theory of intertextuality in order to deconstruct the bourgeois ideology of l.he subject and to undermine all tradition al certitudes and authorities, the "random cannibalism" Oameson 1984) of the American post­modernist movement has tended to spend itself in arbitrary violence and euphoria. The carnival it stages no longer threatens any authority; on the con­trary, this carnival is tolerated or cven welcome by those in power, as it helps to take people's minds off those life-endangering facts which are in the meantime eagerly brought ab out by them, backstage. Also, the dialogue of texts and dis­courses no longer serves to playoff differences with a critical and analytic pur­pose; it rather serves to stimulate the sophisticated pleasures of the disparate and heterogeneous. The "Literature of Exhaustion", which still knew the sorrows of lost authenticity and reality and suffered from the compulsion to repeat the deja vu, the dejd, lu, the deja vecu again and again, has long since given way in Barth's theory to a "Literature of Replenishment" (Barth 1980 and 1982), which cele­brates the random disposability of everything and cheerfully competes in its disparate abundance with mail-order catalogues, the shelves of supermarkets, the channels of the media and hectically changing fashions in packaging, adver­tising and dress. Postmodernist art threatens to decay into what postmodern consumerism and the entertainment industry have already become - a ploy of social engineering that helps us to repress our anxieties as regards diminishing natural resources, through stimulating an artificial euphoria of abundance. To

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 Ästhetik des Wortes. Ed. R. GrÜbel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Barth,John 1968 1980 1982

Lost in the Funhouse. New York: Doubleday. "The Literature of Replenishment: Postmodern Fiction." Atlantic 245, 65-71. The Literature of Exhaustion and The Literature of Replenishment. N orthridge, 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 Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Nie-meyer.

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 Sub­

ject. 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. Harmonds­

worth: 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.

How Postmodern is Intertextuality? 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 Pütz & 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. Dialogizität. Mün­

chen: Fink, 237-249. Grübel, 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 Warenästhetik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp (orig. 1971).

Hempfer, Klaus W. 1976 Poststrukturale Texttheorie und narrative Praxis. München: Fink. 1983 "Überlegungen zu einem Gültigkeitskriterium für Interpretationen und ein kom­

plexer Fall: italienische Ritterepik der Renaissance." In K. W Hempfer & G. Regn, eds. Interpretation: Das Paradigma der europäischen Renaissance-Literatur:

Hesse, Eva

Festschrift für Alfred Noyer-Weidner zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1-31.

1986 "'Als ob ein Mann sein eigener Autor wäre .. .': Gedanken über J ames Laughlin, Verleger und Dichter." Akzente 33, 338-346.

J ameson, Fredric 1984 "Postmodernism and Consumer Society." Amerikastudienl American Studies 29

(1984),55-73. Kloepfer, Rolf

1982 "Grundlagen des 'dialogischen Prinzips' in der Literatur." In R. Lachmann, ed. Dialogizität. München: 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 Großvaters Kopf Tr. Eva Hesse. Zürich: Verlag der Arche. 1985 Selected Poems 1935-1985. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

L yotard, 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. Mas­

sumi, pref. R J ameson. Minneapolis: U niversity of Minnesota Press.

224M. Pfister

pfister, Manfred 1985 a "Konzepte der Intertextualität." 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 Ästhetik des Gegenwartstheaters. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 71-90.

1988 "Meta-Theater und Materialität. Zu Robert Wilsons 'the CIVIL WarS'." In H. U.

Pound, Ezra

Gumbrecht & K. L. Pfeiffer, eds. Materialität der Kommunikation. Frankfurt: Suhr­kamp, 454-473.

1975 The Cantos. London: Faber & Faber. Pütz, Manfred & Peter Freese, eds.

1984 Postmodernism in American Literature: A Critical Anthology. Darmstadt: Thesen Verlag.

Schick, Ulla 1984 "Erzählte 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 Intertextualität. Wien: Wiener Slawi­stischer Almanach.

Schöpp, J oseph C. 1985 ,ccEndmeshed in endtanglements': Intertextualität 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 Intertextualität." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 7-26. Stierle, Karlheinz & Rainer Warning, eds.

1984 Das Gespräch. München: Fink. Strauß, Botho

1977 Die Widmung. München: Hanser. Warning, Rainer

1983 "Imitatio und Intertextualität: Zur Geschichte lyrischer Dekonstruktion der Amor­theologie." In K. W. Hempfer & G. Regn, eds. Interpretation: Das Paradigma der europäischen Renaissance~'Literatur: Festschrift für 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

The Politics of Postmodern Parody

Parody - often ealled ironie quotation, pastiehe, appropriation, or simply inter­textuality - is usually eonsidered eentral to postmodernism, both by its detrae­tors and its defenders. For artists, the postmodern is said to involve a "rummag­ing through the ieonographie jumble of the past" (Burgin 1986 a, 50) in sueh a way as to show the history of the representations their parody ealls to our atten­tion. In Abigail Solomon-Godeau's felieitous terms, Duehamp's modernist "ready made" has beeome postmodernism's "already made" (1984, 76). But this parodie reprise of the past of art is not nostalgie; it is always eritieal. I t is also not ahistorieal or dehistorieizing; it does not wrest past art from its originalhistori­eal eontext and reassemble it into "a speetacle of availability" (Buehloh 1984, 123). Instead, through a double proeess of installing and ironizing, parody sig­nals how present representations eome from past ones and what ideologieal eonsequenees derive from both eontinuity and differenee.

Parodie intertextuality also eontests our humanist assumptions about artistie originality and uniqueness and our eapitalist notions of ownership and prop­erty. With parody - as with any form of reproduetion (Benjamin 1969) - the notion of the original as rare, single and valuable (in aesthetie or 'eommereial terms) is ealled into question. As J ohn Berger has argued, this does not mean that art has lost its meaning and purpose, but that it will inevitably have a new and different signifieanee and existenee: "Its authority is lost. In its plaee there is a language of images. What matters now is who uses that language for what pur­pose" (1972 a, 33). In other words, parody works to foreground the polities of representation. Needless to say, this is not the aeeepted view of postmodernist parody. The prevailing interpretation is that postmodernism offers a value-free, deeorative, de-historieized quotation of past forms and that this is a most apt mode for a eulture like our own that is oversaturated with images. Instead, I would want to argue that postmodernist parody is a value-problematizing, de­naturalizing form of aeknowledging the his tory (and through irony, the poli ti es ) of representations.

It is interesting that few eommentators on postmodernism aetually use the word "parody." I think the reason is that it is still tainted with eighteenth-een­tury notions of wit and ridieule. But there is an argument to be made that we should not be restrieted to sueh period-limited definitions of parody (see Hut­eheon 1985) and that twentieth-eentury art forms teaeh that parody has a wide range of forms and intents - from that witty ridieule to the playfully ludie to the

226 L. Hutcheon

seriously respectful. Fredric James?n has called postmodern ~ronic cita.tion "pastiche" or empty parody, assummg that only V:'ha~ ~e ca~ls rat~er um9-ue styles" can be parodied and that such novelty and mdlvlduahty are ImpOSSl?le today (1983, 115). In the light of the parodic yet individual voices of writers hke Salman Rushdie and Angela Carter, to mention only two, such a stand seems hard to defend. In fact it could be ignored - if it had not proved to have such a strong following. .

For instance HaI Foster sees pastiche as the "official sign" of neoconservaUve postmodernism (1985, 127), accusing it of disregarding the context of and con­tinuum with the past and yet of falsely resolving "conflictual forms of art. and modes of production" (16). But as I see it, postmodern parody does not dlsre­gard the context of the past representations it cites, but uses irony to a~knowl­edge the fact that we are inevitably separated fro~ the past t~day - ~y Urne and by the subsequent his tory of those representatlOns. There lS .contmuum, but there is also ironic difference, difference induced by that very hIS tory . Not only is there no resolution (false or otherwise) of contradictory forms inpostmodern parody, but there is a foregrounding of those very contradictions. !hink of th~ variety of parodied texts in Eco' s The Name of the Rose: J an POtOCkl' s M. a~uscrlt trouve ci Saragosse and the work of Borges (see Stephens 1983), t~e wntu:gs of Conan Doyle and Wittgenstein, the Coena Cypriani, and conventlOns a~ dIverse as those of the detective novel and theological disputation (de Lauretls 1987). Irony makes these intertextual references into something more than simply academic play or some infinite regress into textuality: what is called to our atten­tion is the entire representational process - in a wide range of forms and modes of production - and the impossibility of finding any totalizing model to resolve the resulting postmodern contra~ictions. . .

By way of contrast, it could be argued that a relatively ~nproblematlzed Vlew of historical continuity and of the context of representauon offers a stable plot structure to Dos Passos's USA trilogy. But this very stability is called into ques­tion in Doctorow's postmodern ironic reworking of the same historical material in what I would like to call his "historiographic metafiction," Ragtime. Parody­ing Dos Passos's very historicity, Doctorow both uses and abuses it. As B~rba~a Foley has noted, he utilizes "the reader's encyclopedic knowledge that a hIS ton­cal Freud, Jung, Goldman and Nesbit did in fact exist in order to pose an open challenge to the reader's preconceived notions about what historical 'truth' ac­tually is" (1983, 166). Postmodern parody is a kind of contesting "revision" (Roberts 1985, 183) or rereading of the past ~hat both c?nfirms ~n~ subverts the power of the representations of history . ThlS paradoxlcal convlctlOn of the re­moteness of the past and the need to deal with it in the present has been called the "allegorical impulse" of postmodernism by Craig Owens (1980, 67). I would simply call it parody.

Peter Ackroyd's Chatterton offers a good example of a postmodern novel whose form and content de-naturalize representation in both visual and verbal media in such a way as to illustrate weIl the deconstructive potential of parody-

The Politics of Postmodern Parody 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 müdel:- 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~tter­ton: "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

The Politics of Postmodern Parody 229

parody, using the eonventions of realism against themselves in order to fore-ground 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)

The eomplexity of these parodie representational strategies ean be seen in the photography of Barbara Kruger or Silvia Kolbowski with their parodie appro­priation of mass-media images. The 1988 show entided Photographs Beget Photographs (eurated by the Minneapolis Institute of Art) gave a good sense of the parodie postmodern play with the history of photography - both as seienti­fieally accurate doeumentary reeording and as formalist art. Marion Faller and Hollis Frampton presented "Sixteen Studies from 'Vegetable Loeomotion'" whieh (in tide and form) parodied Muybridge's famous human and animal sei­entifie loeomotion studies by using (normally inert) vegetables and fruit as the s~bjeets. Other artists in the show chose to parody ieons of photography-as­hIgh-art by Ansel Adams Qohn Pfahl, Jim Stone) or Weston (Pfahl again, Ken­nethJosephson), always pointing with irony to how modernism eontributed to the mystifieation and eanonization of photographie representation. Contrary to the prevailing view of parody as a kind of ahistorieal and apolitieal pastiehe, postmodern art like this uses parody and irony to engage the history of art and the memory of the viewer in are-evaluation of aesthetie forms and contents through a reeonsideration of their usually unaeknowledged polities of represen­tation. As Dominiek LaCapra has so foreefully put it:

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).

Postmodernism offers precisely that "certain use of irony and parody." As form of ironie representation, parody is doubly coded in political terms: it

both legitimizes and subverts that which it parodies. This kind of "authorized transgression" (Hutcheon 1985) is what makes it a ready vehicle for the political contradictions of postmodernism at large. Parody can be used as a self-reflexive technique that points to art as art, but also to art as inescapably bound to its aesthetic and even social past. lts ironie reprise also offers an "immanent self­consciousness about the avenues of ideologicallegitimation" (Rosler 1981, 81). How do some representations get legitimized and authorized? And at the ex­pense of which others? Parody can offer a way of investigating the history of that process. In her feminist pacifist work Cassandra, Christa Wolf parodically rewrites Homer's tale of men and war, offering economic and political rather than romantic reasons for the Trojan war (trade access to the Bosporus and sexual oneupmanship, not Helen) and telling the silenced story of the everyday life of the Trojan women omitted by the historical and epic narratives written by the conquering foreigners, the Greeks. Other texts are parodied too - Aeschy­lus's Oresteia, the writings of Herodotus and Aristode, Goethe's Faust and Schiller's "Cassandra" - and frequently it is the male representation of the female (or the lack thereof) that is the focus of the rewriting. As Wolf claims in the essay "Conditions of a Narrative" (which accompanies Cassandra in its English translation): "How qui~kly does lack of speech turn into lack of iden­tity?" (1984, 161). This is especially true of Cassandra who, though she had speech, is not believed. Furthermore as Wolf asks: "Who was Cassandra before people wrote about her? (For she is a creation of the poets, she speaks only through them, we have only their view of her)" (287). Because we only know Cassandra through male representations of her, Wolf adds her own feminist representation, one that is equally the "creation" of a writer, of course.

In feminist art, written or visual, the politics of representation are inevitably the politics of gender:

The way women appear to themselves, the way men look at women, the way women are pictured in the media, the way women look at themselves, the way male sexuality becomes fetishism, the criteria for physical beauty - most of these are cultural representations and therefore not immut­able but conditioned. (Malen 1988, 7)

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

-.,­I

The Politics of Postmodern Parody 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

The Politics of Postmodern Parody 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.

The Politics of Postmodern Parody 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 Representa­

tion 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.

1986b Between. Oxford: Blackwell. 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, Günther

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.: Umver­

sity 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

Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography

In the subject index of the MLA Bibliography for 1988 the following remark is app~n.ded to the entry "INTERTEXTUAL ApPROACH": "Documents applying speclflc approaches are so numerous that access to them is provided only in the electronic version of the Bibliography." Accordingly the following list will not attempt to cover everything ever written in the name of intertextuality. Rather, a comprehensive survey will be given of studies concerned with theoretical issues of intertextuality. Those entries which seem to deal with individual texts do contain relevant material in this regard. Unfortunately, as there does not exist anything like a coherent theory of intertextuality, this state of affairs cannot but be mirrored in the entries below.

For practical purposes, related concepts such as 'context', or even 'text' in general, had to be disregarded bibliographically. Also, the sheer magnitude of uooks and articles on adjacent theoretical domains - such as deconstruction, poststructuralism, postmodernism and the like - makes it impossible to include them here, unless they expressly take intertextuality into account. Finally, this bibliography will not consider studies which concern themselves with such tradition al phenomena as allusion, quotation, parody, etc., only-fields of study which, of course, are of intertextual interest.

Added to the present bibliography is a section listing several special numbers of periodicals which contain much 'practical intertextual criticism'.

Individual Studies

Almeida,Ivan

1979 "Trois cas de rapport intra-textuels: La citation, la parabolisation, Ie commentaire." Semiotique & Bible 15,23-42.

Altman, Charles F.

1981 "Intratextual Rewriting: Textuality as Language Formation." In Wendy Stein er, ed. The Sign in Musicand Literature. Austin: University ofTexas Press, 39-51.

Angenot, Marc

1983 . "L'intertextualite': Enquete sur l'emergence et la diffusion d'un champ notionnel." Revue des Sciences Humaines 60/189,121-135. "Intertextualite, interdiscursivite, discours social." Texte 2, 101-112. 1983

238 H. P. Mai

Arrive, Michel 1973 "Pour une theorie des textes poly-isotopiques." Langages 8/31, 53-63. - German tr.:

1986

Baetens, J an

"Zu einer Theorie der poly-isotopen Texte." In Richard Brütting & 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 & 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).

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:

1971

1973

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 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 Uni­versalis 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:

Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: 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

1979

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 Com­munication (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. Blänsdorf, Jürgen

1986 "Senecas Apocolocyntosis und die Intertextualitätstheorie." 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 1987 "Old Wine in New Bottles: Intertextuality and Midrash." Poetics Today 8, 539-556.

r Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography 239

Broich, Ulrich & Manfred Pfister, eds. 1985 Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: M. Nie­

meyer. Broich, Ulrich

1985 "Formen der Markierung von Intertextualität." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 31-47. 1985 "Zur Einzeltextreferenz. " In Broich & Pfister, eds., 48-52.

Bruce, Don 1983 1987

"Bibliographie annotee: Ecrits sur l'intertextualite." Texte 2, 217-258. "De l'intertextualite a l'interdiscursivite." Diss. University of Toronto. - DAI 48 (1987/88),2887 A.

Brütting, Richard 1976 "ecriture" und "texte": Die französische Literaturtheorie "nach dem Strukturalis­

mus": Kritik traditioneller Positionen und Neuansätze. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Her­bert Grundmann.

Bryson, N orman 1988 "Intertextuality and Visual Poetics." Style 22, 183-193.

Burshatin, Israel 1986 "Las teorias de Ram6n Menendez Pidal ante la critica literaria post-estructuralista:

Observaciones en torno a los conceptos 'tradici6n' e 'intertextualidad'." In Manuel Criado de Val, ed. La juglaresca: Actas dei I Congreso Internacional sobre la jugla­resca. Madrid: EDI-6, 59-64.

Carron, Jean-Claude 1988 "Imitation and Intertextuality m the Renaissance." New Literary History 19,

565-579. Caws, Mary Ann

1981 "For a Poetics of Perception: Some Strategies of the Private Eye." The Eye in the Text: Essays on Perception, Mannerist to Modern. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Up, 3-11.

Champagne, Roland A. 1978 "The Writer Within the Intertext." In JeanineP. Plottel & Hanna Charney, eds.

Intertextuality: New Perspectives in Criticism. New York: Literary Forum, 129-137.

Christensen, Bente 1981 "L'intertextualite: Systeme dos de reproduction ou ouverture relative?" In J6zef

Heistein, ed. Etudes fran(aises en Europe non francophone: Actes du seminaire euro­peen de l'AUPELF Wroclaw - Cracovie- Varsovie 15-23 septembre 1979. Warsawl

1982 Wrodaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 167. "Problemes methodologiques d'une lecture intertextuelle: Prise de la prose. " Revue Romane 17/2, 55-63.

Cieslikowska, Teresa 1988 "Tekst intertekstualny tekst - kontekst - intertekst (sytuacje graniczne)." Zagad­

Claes, Paul 1987

nienia Rodzaj6w LiterackichlLes Problemes des Genres Litteraires 3111-2,89-97.

"Bijzondere en algemene intertextualiteitstheorie." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2, 7-15.

Corns, Thomas N. 1986 "Literary Theory and Computer-based Criticism: Current Problems and Future

Prospects." In Etienne Brunet, ed. Methodes quantitatives et informatiques dans l'etude des textes: Colloque International CNRS, Universite de Nice, 5-8 juin 1985 en hommage a Charles Muller. Geneve/Paris: Slatkine-Champion, 221-227.

Culler, Jonathan 1976 "Presupposition and Intertextuality." Modern Language Notes 91, 1380-1396. -

Rev. version rpt. in: Culler. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruc­tion. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, 100-118.

240 H.P.Mai

1981 "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 in­

tertestualita." 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.

Dällenbach, Lucien 1976 "Intertexte et autotexte. " Pohique 7127, 282-296.

Delorme,J. 1979

deMan, Paul

"Le discours de l'intertextualiü! dans le discours exegetique." Semiotique & Bible 15, 56-62.

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 Communica­

tion Inquiry 10/3,32-44. Dupriez, Bernard

1986 "The Semiotics of Rhetoric: Definition." In ThomasA. Sebeok, ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 819-831.

Eco, Umberto 1986 "Casablanca: Cult Movies and Intertextual Collage." Travels in Hyperreality: Es­

says. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 197-211 (orig. 1984).

Eisenzweig, U ri 1983 "Un concept plein d'interets." Texte 2,161-170.

Emberley, Julia I

1988 "The Pain of the Text-Anger: Intertextuality: Gender." Tessera 11,125-135. Ette, Ottmar

1985

Evseev, Ivan 1983

Feral,}.

"Intertextualität: Ein Forschungsbericht mit literatursoziologischen Anmer­kungen." Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 9,497-522.

"Intertextualitatea simbolului arhetipal." Caiet de Semiotica 2,27-37.

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 Übersetzung und Intertextualität." 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.

Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography 241

Frow,John 1986 1990

"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: Über Möglichkeiten des Schreibens

zwischen Autonomie und Abhängigkeit." Die Schrift und die Tradition: Studien zur Intertextualität. München: 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 Intertex­

tualitätsbegriffs bei Arno Schmidt in Richtung auf die humoristische Subjektivität." 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 linguisti­

que et de litterature offerts a Lein 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.

Grübel, Rainer 1983 "Die Geburt des Textes aus dem Tode der Texte: Strukturen und Funktionen der

Intertextualität in Dostoevskijs Roman Die Brüder 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 ei­

nes Nouveau Nouveau Roman. München: 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

1968 "Premiere approche de la notion de texte." In Tel Quel, ed. Theorie d'ensemble. Paris: Seuil, 270-284. - German tr.: "Erste Annäherung an den Begriff Text." In Tel Quel, ed. Die Demaskierung der bürgerlichen Kulturideologie: Marxismus -Psychoanalyse-Strukturalismus. München: Kindler, 1971, 110-124.

Houppermans, S. 1987 "Subject en intertekst." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2, 43-51.

Hutcheon, Linda 1986 "Literary Borrowing ... and Stealing: Plagiarism, Sources, Influences, and Inter­

texts." English Studies in Canada 12,229-239. 1987 "Intertextuality." In Erik Barnouw, ed. International Encyclopedia of Communica­

tions. New York: Oxford Up, 349-351. Idt, Genevieve

1984 '''Intertextualite', 'transposition', critique des sources. " Nova Renascem;a 13, 5-20. Ille, Hans-Jürgen

1988 "Desiderio Navarro zum Begriff der Intertextualität." Beiträge zur romanischen Philologie 27, 307-308.

"Intertextualität. " 1988 In Werner Habicht et al., eds. Der Literatur-Brockhaus. Vol. 2. Mannheim: F. A.

Brockhaus, 262. J ardine, Alice

1986 "Intertextuality." In ThomasE. Sebeok, ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. 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. 1982 "Structuralism and Post,-Structuralism." In Ann Jefferson & David Robey, eds.

Jenny, Laurent

Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. Totowa, N.].: Barnes & Noble, 84-112.

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

Textkörper und Textinhalt: Festschrift für Heinrich Lausberg zum 75. Geburtstag. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 157-162.

Kablitz, Andreas .. 1985 "Intertextualität und die Nachahmungslehre der italienischen Renaissance: Uberle­

gungen zu einem aktuelle~ Begriff aus historischer Sicht (I)." Italienische Studien 8, 27-38.

Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography 243

1986 "Intertextualität und die Nachahmungslehre der italienischen Renaissanc~: Überle­gungen zu einem aktuellen Begriff aus historischer Sicht (II)." Italienische Studien 9, 19-35.

Kapp, Volk er 1984 "Intertextualite et rhetorique des citations." In Marc-Mathieu Münch, ed. Recher­

ches sur l'histoire de la poitique. Nancy: Lang, 237-254. Karbusicky, Vladimir

1983 "Intertextualität in der Musik." In Schmid & Stempel, eds., 361-398. Karrer, Wolfgang .

1985 "Intertextualität 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 Dialogizität und Alterität." In Lachmann, ed., 168-184.

Koppenfels, Werner von .. 1985 "Intertextualität und Sprachwechsel: Die literarische Ubersetzung." In Broich &

Pfister, eds., 137-158. Kristeva, Julia

1967 "Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman." Critique 33/239, 438-465. - Rpt. in:

1968

1968

1969

1969 1970

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 Per-spektiven. Vol. 3. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1972,345-375. "Problemes delastructuration du texte." Nouvelle Critique (Nov), 55-64.-Rpt. in: Tel Quel, ed. Theorie d' ensemble. Paris: Seuil, 298 -317. - German tr. : "Probleme der Textstrukturation." In Tel Quel, ed. Die Demaskierung der bürgerlichen Kul­turideologie: Marxismus - Psychoanalyse - Strukturalismus. München: Kindler, 1971, 135-154. - Rpt. in: H. Blumensath, ed. Strukturalismus in der Literaturwis­senschaft. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1972, 243-262. - Rpt. in: Jens Ihwe, ed. Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Vol. 2. Frank­furt: Athenäum, 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 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. Semeiotike: Recherches po ur une semanalyse. Paris: Seuil. - !tal. tr.: Semeiotike: Ricerche per una semanalisi. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1978. "N arration et transformation." Semiotica 1, 422-448. Le texte du roman: Approche semiologique d'une structure discursive transfor­mationelle. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.

244 H. P. Mai

1974 La revolution du langage pohique: L'Avant-garde a la fin du dix-neuvieme siede: Lautreamont et Mallarme. Paris: Seuil. - Eng!. tr. (excerpts): Kristeva. Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia Up, 1975. - Rpt. (excerpts): "Revolution in Poetic Language." In Toril Moi, ed. The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986, 89-136. - German tr. (excerpts): Die Revolution der poetischen Sprache. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1978. - ItaL tr.: La rivoluzione dellinguaggio poetico: L' avan­guardia nell'ultimo scorcio deI diciannovesimo secolo: Lautreamont eMallarme. Venice: Marsilio, 1979.

Krysinski, Wladimir 1981 "Vue( s) d' ensemble( s): Pour une semiotique diachronique du roman." Carrefours du

1984 signe: Essais sur le roman moderne. The Hague/Paris/New York: Mouton, 1-75. "L'intertexte du roman et l'espace comparatif." Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 11,469-477.

Lachmann, Renate 1982 ed. Dialogizität. München: W. Fink. 1982 "Dialogizität und poetische Sprache." In Lachmann, ed., 51-62. 1983 "Intertextualität als Sinnkonstitution: Andrej Belyjs 'Petersburg' und die 'fremden'

1984 1987

Lafay, Henri

Texte." Poetica 15,66-107. , "Ebenen des Intertextualitätsbegriffs." In Stierle & Warning, eds., 133-138. "Value Aspects of Jurij Lotman's Semiotics of CulturelSemiotics ofText." Dispositio 12/30-32, 13-33.

1977 "Les animaux malades de la peste: Essai d'analyse d'intertextualite." Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 1,40-49.

Landow, George P. 1989 "Hypertext in Literary Education, Criticism, and Scholarship. " Computers & the

Humanities 23,173-198. Lehmann, Hans-Thies

1985 "Müller/Hamlet/Grüber/Faust: Intertextualität als Problem der Inszenierung." In Christian W. Thomsen, ed. Studien zur Ästhetik des Gegenwartstheaters. Heidel­berg: C. Winter, 33-45.

Leitch, VincentB. I

1983 "Versions of Textuality and Intertextuality: Contemporary Theories of Literature and Tradition." Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction. New Yorkl London: Columbia Up, 55-163.

Lemke, J ay L. 1983

1985

Lenz, Bernd 1985

Lernout, G. 1987

Levi, A. H. T. 1981

"Thematic Analysis: Systems, Structures, and Strategies." Recherches Semiotiquesl Semiotic Inquiry 3/2, 159-187. "Ideology, Tntertextuality, and the Notion ofRegister." In James D. Benson & Wil­liam S. Greaves, eds. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse. Volume 1: Selected Theore­tical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, N.J: Ablex Publishing, 275-294 [orig. 1982].

"Intertextualität und Gattungswechsel: Zur Transformation Gattungen." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 158-178.

"Intertextualiteit als programma." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2, 33-42.

literarischer

"Histoire litteraire, intertextualite et civilisation." In J 6zef Heistein, ed. Etudes fran­(ais es en Europe non francophone: Actes du seminaire europeen de l'A UP ELF Wroc­law - Cracovie - Varsovie 15-23 septembre 1979. Warsaw/Wroclaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 148-156.

, I

Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography 245

Lindner, Monika 1985 "Integrationsformen der Intertextualität." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 116-135.

Link, Jürgen 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 1985 "0 delimitare a conceptului de 'intertextualitate'." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36,

18-24. Markiewicz, Henryk

1988 "Odmiany intertekstualnosci." Ruch Literacki 29,245-263. Martens, Gunter

1989 "Was ist ein Text? Ansätze zur Bestimmung eines Leitbegriffs der Textphilologie. " Poetica 21,1-25.

Mihaila, Ecaterina 1985 "Text si intertextualitate." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 34-42.

Mihaila, Rodica 1985 "Titlul, metatext si intertext. " Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 73- 81.

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.

1985 "Is There an Intertext in This Text? Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intertextuality." American Journal of Semiotics 3/4, 1-40.

N et, Mariana 1983 "Towards a Pragmatics of Poetic Intertextuality." Cahiers de Linguistique Theori­

que & Appliquee 20,159-162. Nicolaisen, W. I. H.

1986 "N ames as Intertextual Device." Onomastica Canadiana 68, 58-66. Nubert, Roxana

1986 "Zur Intertextualitätspoetik: Ergebnisse der neuesten Forschung." Caiet de semi­otica 5, 63-74.

Orr, Leonard 1986 "Intertextuality and the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics." College English 48,

811-823. Paulson, William R.

1988 The Noise of Culture: Literary Texts in a World of Information. Ithaca/London: 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 1978 "On Alluding." Poetics 7,289-307.

Perrone-Moises, Leyla 1976 "L'intertextualite critique." Pohique 7/27, 372-384.

246 H.P.Mai

Petöfi, Janos S. & Terry Olivi 1988 "Schöpferische Textinterpretation : Einige Aspekte der Intertextualität." In J anos S.

Petöfi & Terry Olivi, eds. Von der verbalen Konstitution zur symbolischen Be­deutung - From Verbal Constitution to Symbolic Meaning. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 335-350.

Pfister, Manfred 1985 "Konzepte der Intertextualität." In Broich & Pfister, eds., 1-30. 1985 "Zur Systemreferenz. " In Broich & pfister, eds., 52-58.

Ping Hui, Liao 1983/84 "Intersection andJuxtaposition of Wor(l)ds." Tamkang Review 14, 395-411.

Plett, Heinrich F. 1985 "Sprachliche Konstituenten einer intertextuellen Poetik." In Broich & Pfister, eds.,

78-98. 1986 "The Poetics of Quotation." Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis:

Sectio Linguistica 17, 293-313. - Rpt. in Janos S. Petöfi & Terry Olivi, eds. Von der verbalen Konstitution zur symbolischen Bedeutung - From Verbal Constitution to Symbolic Meaning. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1988,313-334.

Poirion, Daniel 1981 "Ecriture et re-ecriture au moyen age." Litterature no. 41,109-118.

Popovic, Anton 1973 "Text a metatext." Slavica Slovaca 8, 347-373. - Ital. tr.: "Testo e metatesto:

1976 1980

Tipologia dei rapporti intertestuali come oggetto delle ricerche della scienza della letteratura." In Carlo Prevignano, ed. La semiotica nei paesi slavi: Programmi, pro­blemi, analisi. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1979,521-545. "Aspects of Metatext. " Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 3, 225 -235. "Inter-Semiotic-Inter-Literary Translation." In Bela Köpeczi et al., eds. Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Kunst & Wissen-Erich Bieber, 763-765.

Preisendanz, Wolfgang 1982 "Zum Beitrag von R. Lachmann: 'Dialogizität und poetische Sprache.'" In Lach-

mann, ed., 25-28. •. Pugliese, Abel Orlando

1988 "Von der Hermeneutik zur Text-, Kontext- und Intertextanalyse." In Ilse Nolting­Hauff & Joachim Schulze;'eds. Das fremde Wort: Studien zur Interdependenz von Texten: Festschrift für Karl Maurer zum 60. Geburtstag. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 17-50.

Reis, Carlos 1985

Rewar, Walter

"Intertextualite et lecture critique." Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 12, 46-55.

1976 "Notes for a Typology of Culture." Semiotica 18, 361-377. 1989 "On Hierarchy, Extension, and Boundary in the Cybernetic Modeling of the Liter­

ary Text." Semiotica 75, 229-255. Ricardou, J ean

1983 "Le texte survit a l'excite (Reponsea. Michael Holland)." Texte 2, 193-215. Riffaterre, Michael

1977 "Semantic Overdetermination in Poetry." PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics

1977 1978 1979

and Theory of Literature 2,1-19. "Intertextual Scrambling." Romanic Review 68, 197-206. Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington/London: Indiana UP. Laproduction du texte. Paris: Seuil.-Engl. tr.: TextProduction. NewYork: Colum­bia Up, 1983.

Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography 247

1979 "Semiotiqueintertextuelle: L'interpretant." Revue d'Esthhique 1-2, 128-150.-Pol­ish tr.: "Semiotyka intertekstualna: interpretant." Pamietnik Literacki 79, 1988, 297-314.

1979 "La syllepse intertextuelle." Poetique 10/40,496-501. 1979/80 "Syllepsis." Criticallnquiry 6, 625-638. 1983 "Semanalyse de l'intertexte (Reponse a Uri Eisenzweig). " Texte 2, 171-175. 1985 "The Interpretant in Literary Semiotics." American Journal of Semiotics 3/4, 41-55.

Rodriguez, Luz. 1987 "Intertextuele referentie: Een semiotiek van de mogelijkheid." Spiegel der Letteren

29/1-2, 52-60. Rommetveit, Ragnar

1988 "On Literacy and the Myth of Literal Meaning." In Roger Säljö, ed. The Written 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

1985 "Intertextualite e(s)t interaction." Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 30, 23-30. 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 Semio­

1983 1986

tiques 3/21,5-27. "Intertextualite." Texte 2,13-22. "Intertextualite." In Algirdas Julien Greimas & Joseph Courtes, Semiotique: Dic­tionnaire 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 1987

Schaar, Claes 1978

Schabert, Ina

"Quand le texte parle de son paratexte." Pohique 18/69, 83-99.

"Linear Sequence, Spatial Structure, Complex Sign, and Vertical Context System." Poetics 7, 377-388.

1983 "Interauktorialität." Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 57, 679-701.

Schendel, Michel van 1986/87 "L'ideologeme est un quasi-argument." Texte 5/6, 21-132.

Schmeling, Manfred 1985 "Textuelle Fremdbestimmung und literarischer Vergleich." Neohelicon 12,231-239.

Schmid, Wolf & Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds. 1983 Dialog der Texte: Hamburger Kolloquium zur Intertextualität. Wien: Wiener Slawi­

stischer Almanach. Schmitz, P. F.

1987 "Intertextualiteit door signalen en door symptomen." Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2, 25-32.

Schoeck, Richard J. 1984 Intertextuality and Renaissance Texts. Bamberg: H. Kaiser.

Schulte-Middelich, Bernd 1985 "Funktionen intertextueller Textkonstitution. " In Broich & Pfister, eds., 197-242.

248 H.P.Mai

Schwanitz, Dietrich 1983 "Intertextualität und Äquivalenzfunktionalismus: Vorschläge zu einer vergleichen­

den 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'En­

semble. Paris: Seuil, 318-325. - German tr.: "Semantische Ebenen eines modernen Textes." In Tel Quel, ed. Die Demaskierung der bürgerlichen Kulturideologie: Mar­xismus-Psychoanalyse-Strukturalismus. München: 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 "Intertextualität 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 Gespräch. München: W. Fink. Stierle, Karlheinz

1983 "Werk und Intertextualität." 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:

1988

Turk, Horst

Essays in Honourof Michael Halliday. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenja­mins, 549-597. "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.

1987 "Intertextualität als Fall der Übersetzung." Poetica 19, 261-277. 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.

Intertextual Theory - A Bibliography 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 Lingvis­

1981 1983

1984

1985 1985

1986

tice 29; 347-357. "Situer l'intertextualite." Cahiers Roumains d'Etudes Litteraires 8/3, 32-36. "A Type of Intertextuality: The Quotation in the Critical Discourse." Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 28, 396-403. "A propos des configurations intertextuelles." Cahiers Roumains d' Etudes Lit­teraires 11/4, 72-78. "Intertextualitatea si specificitatea discursului poetic." Limba Romana 34, 454-460. "Intertextualitatea ca principiu de functionare a textului literar." Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36, 52-63. "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 "Intertextualität als allgemeine und spezielle Texteigenschaft. " Wissenschaftliche

Zeitschrift der Pädagogischen Hochschule Karl Liebknecht 31,890-895. Zander, Horst

1985 "Intertextualität 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 "Intertextualität." Textsoziologie: Eine kritische Einführung. Stuttgart: J. B. Metz­

ler, 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

Special Issues o[ Periodicals

American Journal of Semiotics 3/4 (1985). Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 11 (1984). Litterature no. 41 (1981); no. 55 (1984); no. 69 (1988). New York Literary Forum 2 (1978). Pamietnik Literacki 79 (1988). Poetica 19 (1987). Pohique 7/27 (1976). Revue des Sciences H umaines 60/189 (1983). Semiotique et Bible 15 (1979). Spiegel der Letteren 29/1-2 (1987). Studii si Cercetari Lingvistice 36/1 (1985).

Style 23 (1989). Texte 2 (1983).

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, Käte 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 Blänsdorf, Jürgen 238 Blake, William 227 Bloom,Harold 27,135,136,160,209,213,

222 Bloomfield, Morton W 17,27 Blumenberg, Hans 60,74,174 Böhm, 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

Boltanski, Luc 130,134 Bolter,Jay David 50-51,52,238 Borges, Jorge Luis 26,107,120,213,226 Bormann, Edwin 171,173,175 Boswell,James 146,158 Bottomley, Gordon 22,110 Bouchard, Donald F. 195, 204 Bouissac, Paul 72, 74 Bourdieu, Pierre 69, 130, 134 Bove, Carol Mastrangelo 33, 52 Bowie, Malcolm 37, 52 Boyarin, Daniel 238 Brandt, Joan 53 Brant, Sebastian 122, 123, 126, 127 Brecht, Bertolt 25 Broich, Ulrich 32,45,53,60,62,70,74, 115,

120,146,156,160,166,175,222,239 Bronte, Charlotte 106, 109, 110, 111, 120 Brooke, Rupert 157 Browning, Robert 125 Brownson, Rohert Charles 154,160 Bruce,Donald 53,60,62,70,74,135,160,239 Brütting, Richard 36,37,38,53,239 Bryson, Norman 27,239 Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. 225,235 Buder, Guido 152, 153, 160 Büchmann, Georg 16 Bunge, Mario 71,74 Bunyan,John 109 Burgess, William 136,160 Burgin, Victor 225,229,231,235 Burnett, Frances 154 Burnett, Fred W. 80,81,95 Burns, Rohert 123, 127 Burroughs, William S. 45 Burshatin, Israel 239 Burton, Robert 14,170,172,175,187 Busch, Wilhelm 21 Butor, Michel 213,222 Byles, Torrey 50, 53 Byron, Lord George Gordon 147

Caine,Jeffrey 110 Calder, William 189 Calvino, Italo 101 Capilupus, Julius 169,170,171 Capilupus, Laelius 169,170 Carey,John 195,201,204 Carpenter, Edward 155, 157 Carroll, David 33,53 Carron, Jean-Claude 32,53,239 Carter, Angela 226,228,235 Cather, Willa 144, 153, 158 Cato, Marcus Porcius 166

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

Dällenbach, 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

Dembowski, Peter 240 Deming, Robert H. 240 Derrida,Jacques 3,34,37,38,69,74,79,81,

82,89-92,93,94,95,200,214,222 Dickens, Charles 145,232 Didymus, Paulus 171 Dilthey, Wilhelm 80 Dion, Robert 64,74 Dionysus the Carthusian 188 D'Ippolito, Gennaro 240 Divus, Andreas 217 Doctorow, E. L. 226,235 Dorfmüller-Karpusa, Käthi 68,74 Dos Passos,John 215,226 Dostoevsky, Fyodor M. 212 Douglas, Lord Alfred 24 Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan 112,114,144,226 Dreiser, Theodore 113, 157 Dressler, Wolfgang Ulrich 32,34,52, 165,

175,238 Drucker, Steven M. 59 Duchamp, Marcel 225, 232 Ducrot, Oswald 190 Dumas, Alexandre 113 Duncan, Francis 124, 134 Dupriez, Bernard 45, 53, 240 Dylan, Bob 143, 152

Eagleton, Terry 62,74 Eco, Umherto 11,27,61,62,63,65,68,74,

122,134,187,190,193,204,213,222,226, 235,240

Eichendorff, J oseph von 172 Eigen, Manfred 73, 75 Eisenzweig, Uri 240 Eliot, Thomas Stearns 11,26,105, 115, 123,

140,143,144,146,152,158,160,214,216, 217,218,219,222,229

Ellis,John 37,53,214,222 Ellison, Ralph 146,147,159 Emherley, Julia 240 Engels, Friedrich 13 Erasmus, Desiderius 16,170,175,181-189,

190 Ernst, Max 26 Ernulphus of Rochester 14 Ette,Ottmar 26,27,30,53,181,190,240 Eudokia 171 Euripides 18,220 Even-Zohar, I. 64 Evseev,Ivan 240 Eykman, Christoph. 157,161

Name Index

Fabri, Andreas 170, 175 Faller, Marion 229 Fauconnier, G. 63 Faulkner, William 112

253

Federman, Raymond 209,214,219,220,222 Feininger, Lyonel 220 Fenelon, Fran~ois de Salignac de La

Mothe 110 Feral,J. 33;41,54;240 Fiderio, Janet 49,54 Fiedler, Leslie A. 207,209,223 Fielding, Henry 103,104,105,108,109,116,

120 Fillmore, C. J. 72 Firmat, Gustavo Perez 240 Fish, Stanley 140, 161 Fiske, Donald W. 63, 75 Fitzgerald, F. Scott 140,142,143,144,146,

148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159

Fitzgerald, Robert 217 Flaubert, Gustave 46,106,116 Fokkema, Douwe W. 209,223 Foley, Barbara 226,232,235 Foley, Richard 63, 75 Förster, Leonard 190 Foster, HaI 226,228,235 Foucault, Michel 26,37,79,81,89,95 Fowler, Roger 166,175 Fowles,John 146,159 Fox, John, Jr. 155 Fränkel, Hermann 181,190 Frampton, Hollis 229 Frank, Armin Paul 240 Frank, Robert 234 Franklin, Benjamin 150 Franklin, Carl 49,54 Frawley, William 240 Freadman, Anne 46, 54, 240 Frederic, Harold 157 Freedman,Sanford 41,54 Freese, Peter 207,224 Frei, Hans 80, 95 Freud, Sigmund 32, 38, 72, 226 Freytag, Gustav 215 Friedrich, Caspar David 220 Frisch, Max 118 Frow,John 37,46,54,241 Frye,Northrop 80,96,136,142,161 Fuchs, Catherine 21,27 Füger, Wilhelm 45,54 Fuhrmann, Manfred 167,175 Furetiere, Antoine 64, 67 Fuseli, Henry 20

254 Name Index

Gadamer, Hans Georg 35 Galan, F. W. 31,54 Galsworthy,John 22,112 Gardner,John 101,106,110,115,120 Garson, Barbara 105 Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. 232,235 Gay,John 25 Geidt, J eremy 105 Geier, Manfred 241 Genette, Gerard 21,22,27,49,54,62,64,65,

67,69,70,75,106,110,113,114,120,122, 129,134,135,137,140,146,161,192,201, 202,204,210-211,223,241

George, Charles 114 George, John 12,27 Gerber, Gustav 173,175 Gietema, Erika 241 Gilbert, Sir William S. 25 Ginsberg, Allen 144 Giustiniani, Vito R. 146, 161 Glass, Philip 220 Glowinski, Michal 241 Gluck, Christoph Willibald 220 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang 20,22,60,101,104,

108,113,115,116,172,220,230 Goetsch, Paul 102,116,120 Goldberg, Vicki 233, 235 Gottsched, J ohann Christoph 64 Goyet, Francis 241 Grabbe, Christian Dietrich 101,114 Graciin, Baltasar 64 Graff, Gerald 207,209,223,229,235 Grass, Günther 232, 235 Greenberg, Clement 232 Greene, Graham 115, 116 Greene, Thomas M. 181,182,190 Greimas, AlgirdasJulien 63,65,71,75,85,96,

241 Grimm,Jacob 166 Grimm,Jürgen 37,38,54 Grimm, Wilhelm 166 Grivel, Charles 17,25,28,32,54,62,70,72,

75,127,134,213,214,223,241 Grübel, Rainer 32,54,212,223,241 Guareschi, Giovanni 115 Günther, H. 33, 54 Guillerm, Luce 241

Haan, Bernard J. 59 Habermas, Jürgen 35 Härtling, Peter 104, 120 Halasz, Frank G. 50,54 Hall, Peter 23 Halliday, MichaelA. K. 48,71,72,75

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, Jürgen 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 Höhler, Gertrud 139,161 Hoek, Leo H. 122,127,128,129,130,131,

134, 152, 153, 161 Hölderlin, 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

Hunger, Herbert 168,171,175 Husserl, Edmund 32,38,64 Hutcheon, Linda 193, 194,204,225, 230,235,

242 Huxley, Aldous 9 Huysmans, Joris K. 24 Huyssen, Andreas 43, 55

Idt, Genevieve 242 Ille, Hans-Jürgen 242 Inge, M. Thomas 149,161 Innocent III 188 Ionesco, Eugene 105 Irish, Peggy M. 50, 55 Iser, Wolfgang 141,161,174,175

J ackendorff, R. 63 J acobi, Daniel 46, 53 Jacques, Francis 62,75 Jakobson, Roman 84,85,96,158,161 Jameson, Fredric 15,28,35,37,55,208,217,

221,223,226,228,235 J ardine, Alice 55, 242 Jauß, Hans Robert 156,161 Jefferson, Ann 101, 120,242 Jenny, Laurent 10,28,44-45,55,192,194,

202,204,242 Jens, Walter 26,28 Jensch, Fritz 136, 161 Jensen, Svend Beggild 242 St.John 197 Johnson, Anthony L. 136,138,161 Johnson, Christopher M. 242 Johnson, Oakley C. 148,149,161 Jones, (Everett) LeRoi 126 J ong, Erica 104 Jose, Nicholas 195,205 J osephson, Kenneth 229 Joyce,James 15,23,26,101,106,113,147,

159,202,209,214,215,229 Junker, Hedwig 242 Justinian 170 Juvenal 188

Kablitz, Andreas 242-243 Kant,lmmanuel 14,71,94 Kao, Shuhsi 37, 55 Kaplan, E. Ann 234,235 Kapp, Volker 243 Karbusicky, Vladimir 243 Karrer, Wolfgang 122, 126, 134, 166, 175,243 Keats,John 143,"146,218 Kellett, E. E. 15,28 Kemeny, T. 77

Name Index

Kermode, Frank 187,190 Kerr, Lucille 232,236 Kibedi Varga, Aron S. 243 Kierkegaard, Seren Aabye 103, 104, 115 Kipling, Rudyard 155 Kleinert, Annemarie 102, 120 Kloepfer, Rolf 165, 176,210,223,243 Klotz, Volker 11,28,139,161 Knops, Mathieu 186 Kolbowski, Silvia 229 Konstantinovic, Zoran 243 Koppenfels, Werner von 243 Koritz, Lester S. 66, 67, 68, 75 Krause, Wolf-Dieter 249

255

Kristeva, Julia 3,28,30,32,33,36,37,38-41, 44,45,47,48,50,55,62,70,71,75,79,137, 139,140,161,165,193,199-200,201,205, 208-209,210,211,212,221,223,243-244

Krouse, F. Michael 202, 205 Krüger, Horst 104 Kruger, Barbara 229,234,236 Krysinski, Wladimir 244 Kuhn, Thomas 80, 96 Kuhnen, Johannes 128,134 K yd, Thomas 117

Labarriere, Pierre-Jean 62,75 Lacan,Jacques 37,38,73 LaCapra, Dominick 33, 56, 78, 96, 229-230,

236 Lachmann, Hedwig 24 Lachmann, Renate 32,56, 139, 142, 162, 165,

176,244 Lactantius 188 Lafay, Henri 244 Laforest, Marty 64,74 Lakoff, G. 63 Lamacchia, Rosa 166,170,176 Lamb, Charles 22 Lamb, Mary 22 Lamy, Bernard 64,66,67,75 Landow, George P. 50,56,244 Laughlin,James 216,217,223 Lauretis, Teresa de 226, 235 Lazarevic, Laza 101 Leblanc, Maurice 114 Lefever, R. 72,73,76 Leger, Fernand 232 Lehmann, Hans-Thies 244 Lehmann,Jürgen 33,56 Leitch, Vincent B. 6,28,31,41,56,96,244 Lemke, Gerd 154,162 Lemke, J ay L. 32, 48, 56, 244 Lennox, Charlotte 101,115,116

256 Name Index

Lenz, Bernd 244 Leo the Philosopher 168 Leo, Vincent 234 Leps, M.-C. 12,28 Lernout, G. 244 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim 12 L'Estrange, Anna 110 Levi, A. H. T. 244 Levine, Sherrie 228, 236 Lewalski, Barbara K. 195,201,205 Lewis, Philip E. 44, 56 Lewis, Sinclair 143,150,151,153,154,155,

158, 159 Lievsay,JohnL. 188, 190 Lincoln, Abraham 220 Lindner, Monika 32,45,56,245 Link, Jürgen 245 Lipsius, Justus 170, 172 Liszka, J ames Jakob 84, 96 Liszt, Franz 20 Livingston, Paisley 71, 75 Locke, J ohn 14 Lodge, David 158,162 Logan, Marie Rose 245 Loos, Adolph 207 Lotman,Jurij M. 174,176 Low, Anthony 195,199,201,205 Lucian 168,176 Ludwig, Hans-Werner 146,162 St. Luke 82 Lyotard,Jean-Fran<;ois 207,217,220,223 /,

Mackensen, Lutz 166,176 Magritte, Rene 20, 229 Magureanu,Anca 245 Mahler, Gustav 26 Mailer, N orman 148 Mailloux, Steven 31, 56 Malen, Lenore 230, 236 Malherbe, Fran<;ois de 67,68 Mallarme, Stephane 19, 89 Malory, Sir Thomas 11 Malraux, Andre 25 Man,Paulde 46,53,79,240 Manea, Dana 245 Manet, Edouard 229 Mann, Thomas 101,106,229 Mao Tse-tung 13 Marciszewski, Witold 71,75 Markiewicz, Henryk 245 Marks, Jonathan 105 Martens, Gunter 36, 56, 245 Martin, Loy D. 193, 205 Martindale, Charles 181, 190

Marvell, Andrew 143, 152, 156 Marx, Karl 13,32,38,39,41,219 St. Matthew 188 Mazzaro, J erome L. 46, 56 McLuhan, Marshall 70,219 Melville, Herman 146,150,151 Meredith, George 227 Merivale, Patricia 232, 236 Merrell, Floyd 68, 76 Metschies, Michael 150,162 Meyer, Herman 137,150,162,172,176 Meyer, Reinhart 129, 134 Meyrowitz, Norman K. 59 Mihaila, Ecaterina 245 Mihaila, Rodica 245 Millais, J ohn Everett 231 Miller, Karl 101, 120 Miller,Owen 17,28,245 Milton,John 9,27,105,192-204,205 Moi, Toril 37,56 Mommsen, Theodor E. 190 Monod, Jacques 72,76 Monroe, Marilyn 219 Montaigne, Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de

171-172,176,182,187 Montandon, Alain 116,120 Montemayor,Jorge de 117 Moore, Charles 26 Morawski, Stefan 13, 14,28, 137, 162 More, Sir Thomas 24 Moreau, Gustave 24 Morgan, ThaIs E. 26, 28, 30, 46, 56, 62, 63, 76,

245 Morhof, Daniel Georg 170 Morris, Charles William 6, 28, 85, 96 Morson, Gary Saul 3,28 Mortimer, Armine Kotin 46,56 Motiramani, Mahesh 154,162 Moure, Erin 3 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 115,216 Müller, Heiner 221 Murner, Thomas 126 Musäus,Johann KarlAugust 101,106-107,

118,120 Mussato, Albertino 170 Mussorgsky, Modest 20 Muybridge, Eadweard 229

Nabokov, Vladimir 145, 146, 159 Nadel, Alan 139,162 Nathan,Jacques 136,162 Nebeker, Helen 111,121 Nerval, Gerard de 217 Net, Mariana 245

Neugebauer, Wilhelm Ehrenfried 115, 116, 118

Neumann, Peter Horst 137, 162 Neumeier, Beate 107,121 Newman, Barnett 232 Nichol,John W. 151,162 Nicolaisen, W. I. H. 245 Nies, Fritz 167,176 Nietzsche, Friedrich 50, 72, 165 Nöth, Winfried 32, 56 Nolan,E.P. 190 Nolan, Rita 21,28 Norris, Frank 157 Novak, Kim 231 Nubert, Roxana 245 Nye, Andrea 31,56 Nye, Robert 103, 107, 121

Oates,Joyce Carol 115,144,148,153,154, 159

Offenbach, J acques 25 Olivi, Terry 246 O'Neill, Eugene 105 Ong, Walter J. 16,28 Oppenheimer, Fred Eugene 137,162 Orr, Leonard 26,28,245 Orwell, George 45,46, 152, 159 Ovid 32,61,62,76,170,181,183,184 Owens, Craig 226, 234, 236

Pabst, Walter 102, 116, 121 Parret, Herman 63, 76 Patrikios 171 Patte, Daniel 80, 86, 96 Paul, Fritz 104, 121 Paulson, William R. 34,48,49, 57,245 Pavis, Patrice 245 Pechey,Graham, 33,57,245 Peer, W. van 249 Peirce, Charles Sanders 64,79,82,83-86,89,

93,94,95,96 Pepusch, J ohann Christoph 25 Perkins, George 136,161 Perri, Carmela 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,

162,245 Perrone-Moises, Leyla 201,205,245 Petitot-Cocorda, J. 65 Petöfi,Janos S. 246 Petrarch 188 Petronius 11 Pfahl, J ohn 229 Pfister, Manfred- 30,32,45,53,57,60,62,70,

74,115,120,139, 144, 145, 156, 160, 162, 166, 176,210,220,222,224,239,246

Name Index 257

Phillips, Gary A. 79, 80, 83, 89,96 Phillips, Margaret Mann 183, 185, 186, 190 Picasso, Pablo 26,229,232,233 Pindar 168 Ping Hui, Liao 30, 57,246 Plato 32, 72, 126 Plautus 166 Plenzdorf, Ulrich 102,104 Plett, Bettina 137, 162 Plett, Heinrich F. 8,9,28-29,32,57,62,63,

64,66,76,103,104,105,121,126,134,137, 142,150,151,156,163,166,176,181,191, 198,205,246

Pliny (the Younger) 185 Plottel, Jeanine Parisier 102, 121 Poe, Edgar Allan 104,114,141,159 Poirion, Daniel 246 Pollak, Vivian R. 139,163 Pollock, J ackson 232 Pope, Alexander 21 Popovic, Anton 30,57,246 Porter, Dennis 111,121 Porter, Katherine Anne 122,123 Potocki, J an 226 Potter, Paulus 228 Pound,Ezra 9,10,11,61,209,214,216,217,

224 Preisendanz, Wolfgang 148, 163,246 Preminger, Alex 136,163,167,176 Priessnitz, Horst 105, 114, 121 Prigogine, Ilya 71, 72, 73, 76 Proba 167, 168, 170-171, 176 Propertius, Sextus 181 Proust, Marcel 46,213 Pütz, Manfred 207,224 Pugliese, Abel Orlando 31,35,57,246 Puttenham, George 64 Pynchon, Thomas 141,159,214

Quine, Willard Van Orman 63 Quintilian 183

Rabelais, Fran<;ois 182,186-187,191,212 Radzinowicz, Lady Mary Ann N evins 195,

199,201,205 Rathjen, Friedhelm 136,163 Ravel, Maurice 20 Ray, William 41,57 Raymond, Darrell R. 50,57 Reed, Ishmael 232, 236 Reis, Carlos 246 Reiss, Timothy J. 64, 76, 90, 96 Rembrandt van Rijn 182 Rewar, Walter 40,48,57,246

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 llöder, 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(-Frumu§ani), Daniela 29,247 lludat, Wolfgang E. fI. 142,163 llühm, Gerhard 22 llulewicz, Wanda 247 lluprecht, fIans-George 29,32,58, 62, 63, 69,

72,76-77,247

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 Schöpp, Joseph C. 208,224 Schubert, Franz 220 Schulte-Middelich, Bernd 32,58, 156, 163,247 Schwanitz, Dietrich 105,248 Schweikle, Günther 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

llushdie, Salman 226, 232, 236 llusinko, Elaine 30,58,247 llussell, Charles 58

,. Shaw, George Bernard 10, 105, 106, 115, 125 Shawcross, John T. 203,205

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 Sanä'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

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

T

Stein, Arnold 195,205 Stein, Gertrude 216 Steinbeck,John 123,128 Steiner, Wendy 248 Stempel, Wolf-Dieter 32,58,140,163,164,

224,247,248 Stengers, Isabelle 71,76 Stephens, Walter E. 226,236 Sternberg, Meir 12,29 Sterne, Laurence 14,103,172,232,236 Stevenson, llobert Louis 101 Stierle, Karlheinz 32,58,137,139,146,164,

210,224,248 Still, Judith 3,29,248 Stone, Jim 229 Stonum, Gary Lee 48, 58 Stoppard, Tom 9,19,22,23,101,104,110,115 Strauß, Botho 208,224 Strauss, llichard 24,25 Stravinsky,Igor 26 Stückrath,Jörn 102,116,121,157,164 Suchman, Lucy A. 50, 59 Sullivan, Sir Arthur Seymour 25 Swift, Jonathan 109 Swinburne, Aigernon Charles 143,144 Swingewood, Alan 33, 58

Tabori, George 18 Tafuri, Manfredo 228,236 Tallis, llaymond 31, 58, 24~ Tansey,Mark 228,232 Taylor, Carole 41,54 Tennyson, Lord Alfred 147 Teodorescu, Anda 248 Terence 183 Tetzeli von llosador, Elisabeth 137,164 Thom, llene 65,67,68 Thomas Aquinas 188 Thomas, D. M. 233,236 Thompson, Francis 144 Thornton, Weldon 136,164 Threadgold, Terry 48, 59,248 Tieck, Ludwig 21 Tilborg, Sejf van 79, 97 Todorov, Tzvetan 70,77,146,190 Tolstoy, Leo N. 20, 155, 157 Tompa, Frank W 50, 57 Toro, Fernando de 62, 77 Tracy,JamesD. 188,191 Träger, Claus 166,167,176 Trigg, llandall fI. 50, 55, 59 Trygaeus 167 Turk, fIorst 248 Turkle, Sherry 37,59

Tyler, Stephen A. 248 Tzara, Tristan 23

Name Index

UImer, Gregory L. 41,59 Ulreich, John c.,Jr. 193,205 Updike,John 113,143,152,158,159

Valla, Lorenzo 188-189 Vasiliu, E. 249 Velasquez, Diego llodriguez 230, 232, 233 Verdaasdonk,fIugo 249 Veron, Eliseo 249 Verrier,Jean 194,205 Verweyen, Theodor 173, 177

259

Virgil 10,66,67,68,77,125,169,170,171,181 Voigts, Manfred 139,164 Volkmann, fIerbert 126, 128, 130, 134 Voltaire 155 Voss, Lieselotte 137, 164 Vultur, Smaranda 249

Wagner, llichard 218 Wallis, fIenry 227 Walser, Martin 113 Warhol, Andy 219,220 Warning, llainer 32,58,164,214,224,248 Weill, Kurt 25 Weimann, llobert 33,36, 59 Weinert, Erich 172, 173, 177 Weinrich, fIarald 72, 77 Weisenburger, Steven 136,164 WeHs, fIerbert George 155, 157 Weston, Edward 229 Wheeler, Michael 137,148,149,164 White, Allon 33.59 Whitman, Walt 155, 157 Wieckenberg, Ernst-Peter 123,125,128,129,

134 Wieland, Christoph Martin 118, 148 Wilde, Oscar 23,24, 116, 157 Wild gen, Wolfgang 65,67,68,77 Wilke, fIans-Jürgen 128, 129, 134 Wilkinson, Lancelot P. 181, 191 Williams, William Carlos 216 Wilpert, Gero von 136, 164 Wilske, Ludwig 249 Wilson, Edmund 209 Wilson, llobert 220-221 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 226 Witting, Gunther 173,177 Wittreich,JosephA. 195,196,199,201-202,

205 Wolf, Christa 230, 236 Wolf, Dennie 46, 59

260 Name Index

Wolpers, Theodor 102, 121, 157, 164 Wood, Derek N. C. 197,206 Woodhouse, A. S. P. 200, 206 Woolf, Virginia 103 Wordsworth, William 19,109 Worton, Michael 3,29,248 Wuthenow, Ralph-Rainer 102,116,121,145,

157,164

Yankelovich, Nicole 49,59 Yeats, William Butler 72, 77,208,224,228

Zander, Horst 249 Zappa,Frank 30,59 Zeeman, E. C. 65 Zeleny, Milan 70,72,77 Zepp, Evelyn H. 59,249 Zilberberg, Claude 68, 77 Zima, Peter V. 224, 249 Zincgref, Julius Wilhelm 170,172 Ziolkowski, Theodore 102,107,108,121 Zumthor, Paul 249 Zurbrugg, Nicholas 30,59,249 Zurowski, Macie; 249

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

citation (see quotation) classification (see taxonomy) cliche 61,219 closure 61,153,201,229 code(s) 7,11,12,26,31,50,125,127,128,129,

130,131,133,174,198,213 codification 129, 165 cognition 63, 65, 72 coherence 5-6, 112, 169 collage 4,11,19,22,23,174,208,220,221,234 combination 20, 115 comment(ary) 12,13, 17,22,49,78,93, 139,

146, 147, 151, 154, 157, 172, 181, 182, 186, 197, 198,217 (see also meta-commentary)

- authorial 146 - pseudo- 12 commodity 39,129,219 commonplace books 16,128,183,184 commonplaces (see topoi) communication 5,6, 12, 13, 14, 16,23,32,34,

35,37,40,42,43,128,144,196,214 comparative studies 4, 102 compendium 140, 187 competence 8,12,16,18,71,79,92,117,140,

141, 143, 144, 145, 152, 153, 155, 156, 234 (see also reader)

computers 7,16,46,49-51,65,69,128,129 (see also hypertext)

condensation 22, 23, 25 connotation 37, 138, 139, 153 conservatism 44,45 (see also tradition) consumerism 46,129,130,208,213,218, f19,

221 contamination 115 (see also amalgamatio~) context (general) 10,11,14,31,63,80,82,91,

154,237 - allusive 142 - culturallsocial 26,33,40,42,68, 128, 133,

181,209,211,214,218 - fictional (see world, fictional) - historical 33, 79, 90, 128,225,226,233 - intellectualltheoretical 32,36,37,41,65,79,

81,193,208,210 - political 232 - quotational 11, 12, 14, 16,64,66,67, 103 - textual 81,85,88,90,91,92,94,105,123,

126,197,230,231 (see also cotext) contingency 63,65,67,208,232 continuation 113,210,217 (see also serializa-

tion) contradiction 48,226,227,228,230,234 contrafacture 172,173, 174 control 31,32,47,65,95,140,187,197 convention 31,226,228,229,232

- 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 Fließgleichgewicht 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

Subject Index 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 nterauktorialität 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

- linguistic 188 - literary 182 - material (particularizing) 7,8,24,25 - material-structural (particularizing-generaliz-

ing) 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

Marxism 3,37,42, 194 mass media 207,208,213,218,229,230,231,

233,234 meaning 10,11,31,34,35,41,42,43,47,48,

60,61,65,67,71,72,79,80,81,82,84,86,88, 90,91,92,93,94,95,103,122,138,141,142, 151-153,154,158,182,188,193,196,200, 201,202,204,209,212,213,220,228,229

memory 15-16,18,25,40,72,73, 128, 137, 187,193,229

meta-commentary 216 metafiction 226, 231 meta-intertextual 61 metatext(ual) 22, 140, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149,

151,156,157,158,215 mirror 15,126-127,182,208,215,216 mise en abyme 23 misreading 31 mobile 189 model 19,32,104,109,115,116,117,173,192,

198,201,203,211,231 modernism 19,25,26,48,207,208,210,214,

216,217,218,222,225,229,231,233 montage 11, 19,26,46, 165 motto 11,22,122-133,145,187-188 musee imaginaire 25,208,219 (see also ar-

chive) mUSlC 24,25,26,62,149,152

names 102-107,108,110,111,112,113,114, 115,119,128,131,133,136,138,142,143, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151-152, 153

negentropy (see entropy) Neoclassicism 210 neo-conservatism 226,228 (see also conserva­

tism) network 33,49,50,63,67,69,90,92,101,119,

133,155,209,210 (see also intertexual web) noise 65,201,213,218 (see also cybernetics) normativity 13,14,18-19,64,66,81,173,174,

218

ontology 44,81,82,107,109,210 openness, semantic 15, 140, 142, 145, 153, 156 orality 16,128 organicism 9,45,187 organism 60, 70, 71 origin(ality) 11,17,19,84,91,93,105,107,

108,109,111,194,208,209,217,219,225, 228,234

otherness 79,90 overcoding 61~ 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128,

129,133 ownership (see property)

Subject Index

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

265

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 transfor-

mation) 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 ideology)

poly-isotopy 10,25 polyphony 10,70,211 polysemy 150,151 popular culture 149,207,208,218,219,233,

234 positivism 19,40,47, 79, 80, 90 postmodernism 4,19,26,48,70,80,81,117,

118,142,186,207-210,214-222,225-234, 237

poststructuralism 3,4,31,32,33,34,35,36, 37,38,43,44,45,48,50,51,62,69,72,80,81, 135, 138, 210, 211, 214,215,216,217, 237 (see also deconstruction)

post-text 17,22,23 practice, semiotic/textual 30,31,33,37,39,40,

41,42,43,44,46,48,49,61,65,67,69,78,79, 81,82,85,89,94,95,181,186,187,192,210, 215,229,231,232

pragmatics 6, 8 (see also quotation, pragmatics 01)

praxis (see practice, semioticltextual) presupposition 5,6,12, 18,64,65,71,81,82,

90,91,140,141,148,150,153,156,158,197, 202,210,216

266 Subject Index

pre-text 8,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,19,20,22, 23,25,45,103,106,10~ 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

quotation 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) - verbal 8 - within-a-quotation 15

reader 5,10,12,13,15,22,23,24,26,31,34, 35,36,41,43,44,47,48,51,62,78,80,81,82, 85,86,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,105,106,108, 111,112,117,123,124,128,130,133,140, 141,143,144,146,150,152,153,187,192, 193,194,196,197,198,200,201,204,210,

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

science 7,8,33-34,35,38-39,40-41,42,47, 63,70,71,94

scriptible 69, 194,204 self 34, 119, 188,213,215 (see also subject;

individuality) self-contained 6,19,34,43,209,212,213 (see

also autonomy) semiosis 7, 8, 44, 61, 63, 67, 82, 83, 84, 88, 94,

214 (see also process, semiotic) semiotics 3,4,6-7,18,20,31,32,36,38,39,

41i42,43, 63, 65, 70, 71, 79, 81,82,87

- cultural 40,42,44,212 sender 12, 13, 18 sequel 110, 111, 112, 113 (see also serializa­

tion) serialization 22,23-24,106, 112, 113, 128, 129 sign 6,7,18,20,21,23,25,26,36,78,83,84,

85,86,87,88,89,91,93,214 signification/signifiance 42,65 similarity 32,64,103,104,106,109,143,195

(see also identity) skepticism 26,35,36,47,63 society 40,43,47,48,130-131 sociology 4,42,44, 63 source 7,8,12,17,18,22,33,49,80,85,93,

107,111,119,135-158,172,182,185,186, 187,219,220

source-influence studies 44,47 speaker (see sender) speech 34,35,40,90,230 stereotype 112 structuralism 31,33,34,35,36,38,39,41,42,

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,

209,211,212,213,221 sub-text 12,185, 186 subversion 31,32-33,37,38,40,41,48,65,81,

108,211,212,213,221,226,229,230,232, 233,234

superimposition 25,50,115,217 supplement 15,22,93,110 syllepsis 139,200 syntactics 8 Systemreferenz 166

target text 8,9,49,136,137,139 taxonomy 4,6,32,39,41,42,45,47,52,130,

135,146,148,149,194,211 teleology 39,91 . text (models) 5-6,17,30,31,34-35,36,37,40,

42,45,47,50,60,79,80,81,82,84,86,88,89, 90,91,92,93,94,95,193,194,197,202,208, 209,210,211,212,213,214,217,237

- absolute 34 - as activity 36 - communal 213 - etymology of 183 - infinite 31 - pO'itmodernist 215 - social 40 texte general 40, 135, 148,214 (see also con­

text)

Subject Index 267

textuality 6,19,31,36,37,38,40,50,60,62, 90,92,93,94,165,215,226

textualization 31,36,214 texture 24,51,61,63,90,93,183,189,213,

228 (see also intertextual weaving/web) theatre 23,24,62, 129, 149,220-221 thesaurus 7,16,185 tissue (see texture ) tide 9,10,11,22,89,105,106,113,122-133,

136, 141, 142,144, 145, 146, 150, 151, 152-153,231,232-233 (see also allusion, titu­lar)

topicality 148,157 topicalization 66 topoi 146,184,185 topology 65, 66, 67, 68 totality 6,211 trace(s) 25,61,90,123,136,140,141,187,188,

200,212 tradition 4,5,31,32,35,37,38,41,61,67,80,

81,82,85,91,94,95,109,114,126,128,129, 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,

81,91,103, 104, 105,126,127,150,151,15~ 194,212,220 (see also permutation)

transgression 230, 234 trans-individual 18 translatability 84, 85, 88, 89,92, 194 translation 4, 11,20-21,24,69, 105, 122, 185,

210,217 trans-linguistic 34,40 transposition 19,23,40,44 (see also transfor-

mation) transstylization 21 transtextual(ity) 7,61,68,69,70,71,135,192 travesty 4,19,23,24,25,64,65,67,172,173,

208,210,218 truth 31,39,50,63,68,79,90,94,95,202,219,

226,227 typology 13, 127 - biblical 5, 78, 195, 201

uncertainty 64, 71, 227 undecidability 200 uniqueness 17,193,225,226 unity 16,47,48,84,85,89,210,211,212 universe of texts 17,65,140,189,214 utopia 43

validity 13,14,19,42,43,67,202,203

------------------------------------------------.......... -------268 Subject Index

variation 10, 126, 127,234 verification 16,140,141,142,147 verisimilitude 42 vertical context systems 138 voice 93,198,199,201,204,211,213,226 (see

also dialo gisml dialo gue)

work (of art) 16,45,47,48,62,89,93, 102, 103,106,10~112,113,114,116, 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

RESEARCH IN TEXT THEORY UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR TEXTTHEORIE

Discourse and Communication New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication

Edited by Teun A. van DÜk Large-octavo. vm, 367 pages. 1985. Bound DM 160,­ISBN 3 11 0103192 (Volume 10)

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)

Connexity and Coherence Analysis of Text and Discourse

Edited by W. Heydrich, F. Neubauer, J.S. Petöji, E. Sözer Large-octavo. XII, 404 pages. 28 illustrations, 5 tab)es. 1989. Bound DM 198,- ISBN 311 0111020 (Vo)ume 12)

Prioca IlI'C subjcct 10 change