You are on page 1of 9


Yelena Baraz, Christopher S. van den Berg

American Journal of Philology, Volume 134, Number 1 (Whole Number
533), Spring 2013, pp. 1-8 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press
DOI: 10.1353/ajp.2013.0003

For additional information about this article

Accessed 15 Feb 2014 15:45 GMT GMT

During the last century. Classicists are likely to know Schmitz 2007. literary scholars of virtually every critical persuasion explored the theoretical underpinnings of allusion and intertextuality.3 Bakhtin. by literary theorists.5 1  Conte 1986. and Edmunds 2001.. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY INTERTEXTUALITY INTRODUCTION Yelena Baraz and Christopher S. e. 1984a. 1. 4  Seminal are Bakhtin 1981. A succinct overview is available in Martin 2011. Image.4 The study of intertextuality continues apace in a range of academic fields. 2  On the restricted application of the term “intertextuality. and Kristeva first formulated the vocabulary and conceptual frameworks which have since been taken up. and Beyond. Pucci 1998.” The papers in that collection reflect the diversity of methods and media (esp. 78–86. including assessments of recent developments and vocabulary. and Orr 2003. and 1986. the introduction to articles first presented as papers at a seminar of the 2010 meeting of the American Comparative Literature Association in New Orleans. 3  Pucci 1998. and revised by scholars across disciplines.” coined by Julia Kristeva. van den Berg u This introduction cannot do justice to the long and complex history of intertextuality as practiced by classicists. visual) for the study of intertextuality in neighboring disciplines. advanced. American Journal of Philology 134 (2013) 1–8 © 2013 by The Johns Hopkins University Press . see. with both specialist studies and capable surveys aimed at broader audiences. entitled “Intertextualities: Text. are: Clayton and Rothstein 1991. but it is appropriate to outline some of the more influential developments since Conte1 first reconceived Giorgio Pasquali’s arte allusiva in terms of Julia Kristeva’s intertextuality2 and helped establish a dominant model for the study of Latin poetry. 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).g. 8–16. chap. 5  Especially useful introductions. provides a concise overview. Barthes. Kristeva 1969 and 1986 (drawing heavily from Bakhtin). 14–16. Allen 2000.

while present “in potentia” in the text. 10  Thomas 1986. 13  Hinds 1998. esp. following Hinds’ now classic intervention. 47–51. 17–25.” thus temporarily empowered at the expense of the otherwise controlling 6  See Farrell 1991. with two major strands shaping the debate. 4–25. the psychoanalytic account offered by Oliensis 2009 brings the author back into focus as an agent. 14  Pucci 1998. Thus Conte.11 Hinds has suggested a move away from “philological fundamentalism” towards semiology as exemplified mainly by Conte..12 He identifies allusion and intertext as two opposed concepts which are essential to the philological and the semiological approaches. who. presents a very useful discussion and catalogue of “markers”/“markings” of allusion (15–24.10 in search for greater precision in identifying and interpreting allusive relationships. always on the lookout for verbal correspondences. e. 30–31). 7  Hinds 1998. One can be dubbed.7 “allusion versus intertext. respectively.” pitting the detection and interpretation of clearly defined literary reminiscences against more diffuse.8 The other strand has contested where the interaction. . albeit one who only partially controls the creation of meaning. at the outset of his study of word repetition as a particular type of allusion. 12  Hinds 1998.” setting it apart from “accidental” verbal correspondences. has foregrounded text in order to avoid psychologizing the author9 and distinguished between local and systematic allusion.6 In the last three decades. 21–24.14 has sought to shift the emphasis away from the author and the text15 in proposing that allusion. have engaged with the question of how to define and understand allusive phe- nomena in a more rigorous way.13 A proponent of one such approach.2 yelena baraz and christopher s. although this engagement is in many ways a continuation of ancient reading practices. Wills 1998 for a useful typology. He leaves some room for authorial intention in reaction to what he sees as the extremes of reader-based approaches. is to be imagined as taking place. 9  In practice the author often reappears in individual readings (see Farrell 1991. has proposed replac- ing “allusion” with “reference. 144. for a brief critique). 43. 15  Another analysis that focuses on the audience with an emphasis on the ideological aspects is Laird 1999. 8  Another major consideration of the two approaches is Fowler 2000. influenced by structuralism and semiotics. Pucci. Thomas.g. however one may choose to describe it. more Kriste- van understandings of interactions on the level of language as a semiotic system. is only activated in the mental space of a “full-knowing reader. 11  See also Wills 1996. van den berg Classicists. work on the subject has intensified. 35–43. cf.

as critical attention tends to be limited in both genre and era. the kinds of meaning that modern scholars are likely to see in ancient texts. 19  Fowler 2000. The results of the critical dialogue about intertextuality have included a new- found appreciation of the pervasive and productive character of imitation. 20  Van Mal-Maeder 2007.” which was held at the 2012 American Philological Associa- tion meeting in Philadelphia. For example.16 Edmunds. 128. and. That our own interest found considerable sympathy in the wider 16  Outlined in chap. Damon 2010. however. numerous alternatives demand consideration. and second of other types of cultural production. Recent exceptions provide an impetus to move beyond the poetic canon on which the theoretical frameworks currently in use are based. that authorial intent is present in his final definition of allusion (47). whose distinction between “allusion” and “intertext” he also rejects.”19 His insight still holds. sees allusion as created through interaction between reader and text. and Christopher Polt for their stimulating contributions to the original panel. 40–44. common ground is discernible concerning the ultimate significance that textual reuse has to offer. Fowler remarked on the tendency “for intertextual criticism to concen- trate on poetic literary texts to the neglect first of prose.20 The present volume originated in the panel “Intertextuality and Its Discontents. 2. analysis of Roman texts has focused on poetry—especially epic—of the early empire. Levene 2010a.18 While no consensus has emerged on these issues. acknowledgement that reference both appropriates and undermines a tradition. nor does one seem likely to. 82–163. for others. John Henkel.17 following primarily a Jaussian theory of reading. . Marchesi 2008. introduction 3 author. leaving the author out of the equation entirely. and the most fruitful aspects of intertextuality have now found their way into the critical repertoire of many classicists. and acceptance that alluding authors interpret forerunners and offer metacritical assertions about their own texts. 18  With a critique of Hinds. subliterary and non-literary texts. More than ten years ago. 17  Edmunds 2001. 21  We wish to thank Stephen Hinds (an exemplary respondent). Polleichtner 2010. note. These effects have led to a recognizable framework for the interpretation of textual repetition and reuse. esp.21 The panel was motivated partly by dis- satisfaction with the current range of approaches to intertextuality and partly by a desire to reexamine its application to the study of the ancient world. consequently. O’Gorman 2009. Still.

. promising to increase and refine the allusions available to the interpreter interested in the interface of particular texts.4 yelena baraz and christopher s.ncl. whose work informed both Kristeva’s original formulation of intertextuality and Raymond Williams’ founda- tional contribution to the field of cultural studies. and the Promise of Intertextuality. and Volosinov. a poem that celebrates the victory of the Locrian Hagesidamus. compare Fowler 2000. organized by John Marincola) and on “Historiogra- phy. Others.23 The articles collected here offer fresh perspectives on referential relationships in traditionally overlooked genres and cultural practices and suggest new possibilities for the theory. and the oral tradi- tion. organized by Christina S. 2012. transmitted in later texts. Oral Tradition. The time seemed right to invite scholars with new takes on the old method to address a wider audience. of course. Nicholson’s case study examines the relationship between Pindar’s Olympian 122–27. The articles in this volume identify hitherto unexplored areas and promise to shed new light on the workings of textual redirection.” by Nigel Poetry. van den berg community was reflected in the large number of abstracts submitted and in the attentive crowd which braved a cramped room at the Philadelphia Marriott. are also seeking new ground. and the insights of all three will hopefully give new prominence—and generically sensitive perspective—to allusive practices in non-poetic media. and the Intertext” (2013. 382–83. terminology. but technology is not necessarily coex- tensive with the insights that are built on technology. Nicholson shows that the informal oral tradition gives us access 22  A different way forward is suggested by a project at SUNY Buffalo (presented in Coffee et al. Medvedev. The first piece. with Coffee et al. The problem is not solely whether we can impose the ascendant methodol- ogy onto a broader array of works—although that enterprise may prove valuable—but whether a more diverse application will alter or challenge current orthodoxy.html. 2012) that expands the possibilities for automatic detection of textual reuse in ancient poetry. and can it contribute to cultural studies by putting literary texts in dialogue with oral tradition? Nicholson’s approach draws on the linguistic theories of Bakhtin. Euthymus. esp. Kraus) bookend this panel. 23  Papers from the first APA session are currently accessible online as working papers at: http://research. poses a crucial question: can the methodology usefully be applied where no fixed text exists. “Cultural Studies. Technological advances have always assisted theoretical advances in the study of intertextuality.22 Recent APA seminars on “Allusion and Intertextuality in Classical His- toriography” (2011. and applicability of intertextuality. concerning another local Olympic victor.

which presents a particular challenge given the genre’s claims to a special relationship to reality. as Cicero underlines the significance of experiential knowledge for the Roman intellectual context.4–10) and then proceeds to analyze the relationship of Cicero’s De Senectute to Plato’s Republic. LeVen emphasizes the possibilities of anecdotes to redefine our sense of textual sources as a “textual collective. Pauline LeVen’s “Reading the Octopus: Authorship. Andrew Feldherr’s article.” in which different pieces of poetic background noise circulate freely as context against which to read a text. The impossibil- ity of pinning down the “source” of specific details upsets our ability to trace a specific reference and therefore to ascribe authorial intention at certain points in a text. and a Hellenistic Anecdote (Machon fr. in which Cicero is seen to be “challenging the reader to make sense of the conflict” between the Greek and the Roman strata of the text. assessing the overlap of formal criticism with socio-cultural approaches and arguing that both are necessary in order to understand such a corpus. but a Rome looking back on the Greek tradition of dialogue. introduction 5 to an ideological strain that can be read productively against the politics of Pindar’s ode. Intertexts. The intertextual relationship is thus not simply adopting or challenging a literary forerun- ner but rather contributes uniquely to Roman political theory. Stull focuses on the association of Cato with Cephalus and on the intellectual consequences of the comparison. The essay begins by tracing what a formalist reading through a chain of allusions can tell us about the chreia but then turns increasingly to the cultural framework surrounding Hellenistic poetics. Feldherr examines . She asks how Machon’s chreiae interact with poetic and scholarly practices in the Hellenistic world. but one that operates at the cultural level: the smaller network of textual connections illuminates the much larger problem of Greek theory in relation to Roman historical realities. In a similar vein. Stull first establishes a framework for understanding Cicero’s allusions to Plato by examining his remarks on the adaptation of Greek texts (De Finibus 1. 9 Gow)” examines the disconnection of texts from identifiable forerunners and explores the value of anecdotal discourses as a context for poetry. Reference back to Plato is a kind of translation. allowing the interpreter to pinpoint areas of contestation within the larger discourse of which it is a part without having to rely on direct verbal allusion or be stymied by the problems of relative dating.” contributes to the ongoing debate on the nature of inter- textuality in historiography. “Free Spirits: Sallust and the Citation of Catiline. William Stull (“On Encountering Cephalus in De Senectute”) takes us from poetry to prose and from Greece to Rome.

and Lit- erature in Roman Imperial Culture. 34–47. Her way into the Roman intertextual imaginary is by consideration of “the metaphors and imag- ery that structure and inform the presentation of textual interplay. .” The 24  Hinds 1998. to create a sense of communal belonging to a textual past: redefining ownership of texts also redefines who has legitimate access to those texts. namely.” turns to the Romans’ own ways of conceptualizing intertextual relationships in the light of legal discourses on property and ownership. Sallust’s (re)attribution of the phrase to Catiline means that the reader cannot clearly determine its source and. Sallust) of the famous (and famously elusive) quo usque tandem in the Bellum Catilinae. therefore. van den berg the complex layering of “rival authors” (Catiline. Drawing on Hinds’ discussion of topoi. using an intertextual approach to under- stand the generic distinctiveness of his literary enterprise. that is.6 yelena baraz and christopher s. Cicero. The concluding section suggests that Sallust’s desire to combat the potential attribution of negative invidia as the underlying motivation for his writing leads to his choice of Catiline as subject. Welch observes: “Valerius desires to be a conduit for this material but not for the particular texts he uses as such. a potential participant in the political conflicts it recounts. Welch reads against the assumption that an author creates and therefore owns the material which he presents. Tara Welch offers a different model of how authors deal with mul- tiple sources in “Was Valerius Maximus a Hack?” She studies Valerius’ reuse of traditional material. Rhetoric. Irene Peirano’s article. its status: is it a literary allusion or an accurate representation of a historical event? The parallels in biography and language between Catiline and Sallust himself further call into question the position of Sallust’s text.24 Welch argues that Valerius’ use of a range of sources can best be seen as “anti-intertextuality” in which the author does not direct the reader to one specific model but rather encourages us to gather the forerunners into a larger cultural tradition. even in cases where that material is placed into its new setting through intertextual citation.” Upsetting the traditional notions of authorship is carried out with a social function in mind. Peirano explores what is culturally specific about the techniques of imitation. “Non subripiendi causa sed palam mutuandi: Intertextuality and Literary Deviancy between Law. Valerius’ “anti- intertextuality” complicates the association of authorship with textual appropriation and ownership. how ideas about intertextual- ity are embedded in neighboring practices.

obligation. “intersignification. Building on her 2008 inter- textual study.” To demonstrate the application of this approach. is connected to the broader cultural practice of judgment: assessments of literature and rulings on legal mat- ters. What results is a fruitful exposition of the legal framework in which textual borrowing could be theorized and justified through appeal to familiar Roman discourses on legitimacy. Marchesi confronts the issues that arise when we want to work between the two extremes that frame Hinds’ seminal book: the verbal allusion (or. Peirano’s point of departure is the famous claim in a declamatory fragment recorded by Seneca the Elder that Ovid imitated Virgil non subripiendi causa sed palam mutuandi. Ilaria Marchesi’s “Silenced Intertext: Pliny on Martial on Pliny (on Regulus)” proposes a way to move intertextuality beyond the need for precise verbal allusion. Roller draws attention to the differences inherent in physical and literary media. “reference”) on the one hand and intertextuality broadly conceived on the other.” This model allows for establishment of specific connections where verbal “clinchers” are absent and provides a theoretical foundation for interpretation of large-scale textual interaction between two or more thematically inter- connected texts. and ownership. takes us into the world of Roman monuments.21) and proceeds to read the interface between the two authors’ corpora in a way that locates the explicit cita- tion within the context of more diffuse. Marchesi begins with Pliny’s partial citation of Martial in the famous obituary letter (3. Roller presents two case studies. Like Nicholson.” by Mathew Roller. such as commemorative buildings and physical monuments. “On the Intersignification of Monuments in Augustan Rome. introduction 7 distinction between legitimate allusion and literary stealing. Marchesi’s study of the relationship between the letters of Pliny and the epigrams of Martial proposes a model of intertextual “clouds”: “areas of loosely connected texts which may still bear interpretive weight and may be shown to have interdependent meaning. The last article. Roller begins by recognizing the similarities between literary intertextu- ality and acts of homage or suppression in material artifacts. and more tentative. He calls for a new term. He focuses on competitive acts of memorialization by Rome’s aristocracy. hoc animo ut vellet agnosci. inheritance. The Art of Pliny’s Letters. The first is Octavian’s reactivation of the memory of Gaius Duilius as he refers to Duilius’ rostral column in his own monument to .” to describe the intertextual-like relation- ships among monuments and other types of signs “beyond the literary. to use Thomas’ terminology. especially those mediated through the figure of Marcus Regulus. significant. yet to moderns somewhat opaque. thematic and circumstantial connections.

edu 25  We wish to thank the contributors for their stimulating articles. Kraus for their com- ments on various drafts of this introduction. and the editor of AJP for helping us see this venture to Amherst College e-mail: cvandenberg@amherst. Roller’s thought provoking inter-media experiment closes the volume by inviting us to widen the application of the familiar theoretical approach to embrace sign systems other than texts and to allow what we discover there to influence the evolution of intertextuality. The second is Augustus’ building of the porticus of Livia after razing the house of the unpopular Vedius Pollio.” whose memory is then preserved as a “paratext” in a different medium— words—has no analogy in the textual domain.25 Princeton University e-mail: ybaraz@princeton. Katz and Christina S. Roller shows that Octavian’s procedure to a large extent follows the patterns familiar from studies of poetic intertextuality.8 yelena baraz and christopher s. We are also grateful to Joshua T. the referees for their prompt and constructive reports. . This erasure of the “source text. van den berg the Naulochos victory.