|
|
|
|
|
|
|
head? Does the author himself always know his intentions? And are these intentions always realised in his work?" (1988: 59; the translation is mine). The implied answer to these questions is obviously 'no', and of course it is not advisable to search for a more original text as described by Claes; no such text exists, and we would simply be creating a text of our own. Nevertheless, Claes, too, is unwilling to give the reader plenary powers. Not all the readers' associations are relevant to a work's intertextuality, and not all interpretations are equally valid. But how are we to judge? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claes does not offer any clear solution, and perhaps there is none. However, we should at least try not to contradict the author's intention. In a number of cases we know what he did not intend; thus he does not refer to texts that did not yet exist in his time or could not possibly be known to him. We can be quite sure that Theocritus does not refer to Vergil or the New Testament or Chinese poetry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elsewhere in his book Claes returns to this problem, stating again that the author's intention cannot be a determining factor. "Cryptomnesia", he says, "the unconscious remembrance of details, is a common phenomenon. It is, for instance, quite possible that an author, within a culture so deeply imbued with Christianity as is ours, unknowingly introduces a number of biblical allusions" (1988: 132). This is possible indeed, although unconscious remembrance need not play a part. An author may use a well-known expression, without realising that it is derived from the Bible. He may say for example 'give a stone for bread' without thinking for a moment of Matthew 7.9. In such cases the author's intention is absent, but the reader cannot be sure and it may be difficult to decide whether such a reference should be taken into account or ignored. However, the rest of the work may be of help. If there are other clearer references to the Bible, we cannot go far wrong if we assume that also the questionable one was meant the same way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broich's restricted definition of intertextuality is intended primarily to rule out the notion of 'influence': "A text, for example, may have been influenced by other texts, while the author is not aware of this influence or does not consider the perception of this influence by the reader a requirement for the adequate understanding of his text" (1985: 3132).4 The reader may note such an influence, but although it may play a part in his evaluation, it does not enable him to achieve a more thorough interpretation. Nor is plagiarism covered by Broich's definition, since a plagiarising author does not intend the reader to detect the text(s) behind his text. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One may well ask whether intertextuality in its more restricted sense presents us with an approach to literature that is really new. Is it not in |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
4 "So kann z.B. ein Text durch andere Texte beeinflusst sein, ohne dass der Autor sich dieses Einflusses bewusst ist oder ohne dass er die Erkenntnis dieses Einflusses durch den Leser als Voraussetzung für das adäquate Verständnis seines Textes ansieht." |
|
|
|
|
|