Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTERTEXTUALITY
INTRODUCTION
u
This introduction cannot do justice to the long and complex
history of intertextuality as practiced by classicists, but it is appropriate
to outline some of the more influential developments since Conte1 first
reconceived Giorgio Pasqualis arte allusiva in terms of Julia Kristevas
intertextuality2 and helped establish a dominant model for the study of
Latin poetry. During the last century, literary scholars of virtually every
critical persuasion explored the theoretical underpinnings of allusion
and intertextuality.3 Bakhtin, Barthes, and Kristeva first formulated the
vocabulary and conceptual frameworks which have since been taken
up, advanced, and revised by scholars across disciplines.4 The study of
intertextuality continues apace in a range of academic fields, with both
specialist studies and capable surveys aimed at broader audiences.5
1
Conte 1986.
2
On the restricted application of the term intertextuality, coined by Julia Kristeva,
by literary theorists, see, e.g., Pucci 1998, 1416, and Edmunds 2001, 816.
3
Pucci 1998, chap. 1, provides a concise overview.
4
Seminal are Bakhtin 1981, 1984a, and 1986; Kristeva 1969 and 1986 (drawing heavily
from Bakhtin); Barthes 1981 (largely indebted to Kristeva) and 1977 (whose The Death of the
Author is perhaps the seminal essay on textuality and authorship in modern literary studies).
5
Especially useful introductions, including assessments of recent developments and
vocabulary, are: Clayton and Rothstein 1991, Allen 2000, and Orr 2003. Classicists are
likely to know Schmitz 2007, 7886. A succinct overview is available in Martin 2011, the
introduction to articles first presented as papers at a seminar of the 2010 meeting of the
American Comparative Literature Association in New Orleans, entitled Intertextualities:
Text, Image, and Beyond. The papers in that collection reflect the diversity of methods
and media (esp. visual) for the study of intertextuality in neighboring disciplines.
American Journal of Philology 134 (2013) 18 2013 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
2 yelena baraz and christopher s. van den berg
6
See Farrell 1991, 425.
7
Hinds 1998.
8
Another major consideration of the two approaches is Fowler 2000.
9
In practice the author often reappears in individual readings (see Farrell 1991, 2124,
for a brief critique); the psychoanalytic account offered by Oliensis 2009 brings the author
back into focus as an agent, albeit one who only partially controls the creation of meaning.
10
Thomas 1986.
11
See also Wills 1996, who, at the outset of his study of word repetition as a particular
type of allusion, presents a very useful discussion and catalogue of markers/markings
of allusion (1524, 3031); cf. Wills 1998 for a useful typology.
12
Hinds 1998, esp. 1725.
13
Hinds 1998, e.g., 4751, 144.
14
Pucci 1998, 43.
15
Another analysis that focuses on the audience with an emphasis on the ideological
aspects is Laird 1999, 3543.
introduction 3
16
Outlined in chap. 2, esp. 4044; note, however, that authorial intent is present in
his final definition of allusion (47).
17
Edmunds 2001.
18
With a critique of Hinds, whose distinction between allusion and intertext he
also rejects.
19
Fowler 2000, 128.
20
Van Mal-Maeder 2007; Marchesi 2008; OGorman 2009; Damon 2010; Levene
2010a, 82163; Polleichtner 2010.
21
We wish to thank Stephen Hinds (an exemplary respondent), John Henkel, and
Christopher Polt for their stimulating contributions to the original panel.
4 yelena baraz and christopher s. van den berg
22
A different way forward is suggested by a project at SUNY Buffalo (presented in
Coffee et al. 2012) that expands the possibilities for automatic detection of textual reuse
in ancient poetry, promising to increase and refine the allusions available to the interpreter
interested in the interface of particular texts. Technological advances have always assisted
theoretical advances in the study of intertextuality, but technology is not necessarily coex-
tensive with the insights that are built on technology; compare Fowler 2000, esp. 12227,
with Coffee et al. 2012, 38283.
23
Papers from the first APA session are currently accessible online as working papers
at: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/Histos_WorkingPapers_APA_7Jan11.html.
introduction 5
24
Hinds 1998, 3447.
introduction 7
Princeton University
e-mail: ybaraz@princeton.edu
Amherst College
e-mail: cvandenberg@amherst.edu
25
We wish to thank the contributors for their stimulating articles, the referees for
their prompt and constructive reports, and the editor of AJP for helping us see this venture
to completion. We are also grateful to Joshua T. Katz and Christina S. Kraus for their com-
ments on various drafts of this introduction.