23

CHAPTER ONE

INTERTEXTUALITY

Concepts of intertextuality

I t i s not my i nt ent i on t o pr ovi de a compl et e backgr ound and

di scussi on of t he concept s of i nt er t ext ual i t y or

i nt er t ext ual i t i es t hat have spr ung up i n t he l ast t went y- f i ve

year s: t he model s, t heor i es, and di scuss i ons gr ow i n number ever y

year . 1 What I i nt end t o do i s br oadl y di scuss t he model s and

t heor i es whi ch seem most r el evant t o devel opi ng a model of my own

f or wor k wi t h t he anci ent t ext s at hand. Thus I wi l l di scuss

some of t he wor k by Jul i a Kr i s t eva, Mi chael Ri f f at er r e, Rol and

Bar t hes, and Jonat han Cul l er per t ai ni ng t o i nt er t ext ual i t y ; and I

wi l l poi nt out some of t he mor e i nt er est i ng di scussi ons of

shor t er l engt h. I wi l l al so di scuss how t he anci ent s saw t he

r el at i onshi ps of t ext s t o ot her t ext s. Then I wi l l t ur n t o t he

model of i nt er t ext ual i t y as di al ogi sm as di scussed i n t he wor k of

Bakht i n and Lot man, and f i nal l y I wi l l out l i ne t he t heor et i cal

f r amewor k t hat wi l l be used i n t hi s di sser t at i on. I wi l l

concl ude t he chapt er by l ook i ng at t he nat ur e and f unct i on

( genr e) of t he Cyr opaedi a and Chr oni c l es, whi ch wi l l become

i mpor t ant because of t he di r ect i on of t he devel opment of t he

t heor et i cal f r amewor k.

24

Hei nr i ch Pl et t char act er i zes t wo t ypes of schol ar s whom

he cal l s “ i nt er t ext ual i s t s : ” t he pr ogr essi ves and t he

t r adi t i onal i st s, bot h conf r ont ed by t he “ ant i - i nt er t ext ual i s t s . ”

The pr ogr ess i ves ar e t hose who “ t r y t o cul t i vat e and devel op t he

r evol ut i onar y her i t age of t he or i gi nat or s of t he new concept ; ”

t hey base t hei r wor k on t he wor k of Bakht i n, Bar t hes, and

Kr i s t eva, and wor k on i nt er t ext ual i t y f r om a phi l osophi cal or

semi ot i c per spect i ve ( 3) . Pl et t char act er i zes t hi s wor k as

“ el i t i st ” and “ esot er i c, ” and cl ai ms t hat ,

Thi s “ school ” has never devel oped a compr ehensi bl e and

t eachabl e met hod of t ext ual anal ys i s . I t s

publ i cat i ons ar e mar ked by a s t r angel y abst r act

qual i t y [ …] [ whi ch] i mpede t hei r under st andabi l i t y but

al so sur r ound t hei r cr i t i cal ent er pr i se wi t h an aur a

of myst er y and exc l usi veness. ( 4)

The t r adi t i onal i st s, on t he ot her hand, ar e convent i onal l i t er ar y

schol ar s who have t r i ed t o appl y not i ons of i nt er t ext ual i t y i n

t hei r own wor k. Some, who ar e mor e concer ned wi t h t heor y, have

used t he t er m i n or der t o “ i mpr ove t hei r met hodol ogi cal and

t er mi nol ogi cal i nst r ument s” ( 4) , and t hus have made

i nt er t ext ual i t y mor e r el evant and under st andabl e. But , war ns

Pl et t , t he downsi de t o t hi s appl i cabi l i t y i s t hat some schol ar s

use t he t er m wi t hout exami ni ng i t s backgr ound and meani ng, t hus

t ur ni ng i t i nt o a “ vogue wor d” ( 4) . Bei ng nei t her a phi l osopher

nor a semi ot i c i an mysel f ( as ar e t he pr ogr essi ves i n Pl et t ’ s

25

cat egor i zat i on) , I suppose I must pl ace mysel f her e. However ,

I hope t o devel op a t heor et i cal backgr ound t o my i nt er pr et i ve

met hod so t hat I can asser t t hat I am not si mpl y usi ng

i nt er t ext ual i t y as a “ vogue wor d. ”

The ant i - i nt er t ext ual i st s Pl et t char act er i zes as t hose

schol ar s who: 1) deny t hat anyt hi ng new i s bei ng done by t he

t r adi t i onal i st s; t hey cl ai m t hat i nt er t ext ual wor k has been done

si nce ant i qui t y, and t hat t hus al l we have i s a change i n

t er mi nol ogy; and 2) si mpl y br ush of f t he wor k of t he

pr ogr ess i ves. Thus i nt er t ext ual i t y i s “ accused of bei ng

i ncompr ehensi bl e on t he one hand and ol d wi ne i n new bot t l es on

t he ot her ” ( 5) .

Pl et t al so poi nt s out t he i mpor t ance of t i me ( i . e. ,

hi st or i cal cont ext of t ext s) i n di scussi ons of i nt er t ext ual i t y .

Ther e ar e t wo di f f er ent appr oaches: t he synchr oni c and t he

di achr oni c . The synchr oni c appr oach posi t s t hat al l t ext s ar e

i nt er r el at ed, r egar dl ess of cont ext ; Pl et t asser t s t hat t hi s i s

not hel pf ul f or t r ue schol ar shi p. The di achr oni c appr oach uses

“ met i cul ousl y r esear ched i nt er t ext ual i t i es; ” by addi ng i n t he

axi s of semant i cs, Pl et t ar gues, i nt er t ext ual i t y can “ r esume i t s

di al ogue wi t h r eal i t y” ( 25- 26) . He al so poi nt s out t hat al t hough

i nt er t ext ual i t y i s not l i mi t ed t o cer t ai n per i ods, i n cer t ai n

per i ods t her e i s mor e use of i t t han i n ot her s ( hi s exampl es wer e

moder ni sm and post moder ni sm) . He wonder s i f per haps

i nt er t ext ual i t y i s a s i gnal of “ cul t ur al decadence” ( 26) .

26

Jul i a Kr i s t eva

As i s wel l known, Kr i s t eva coi ned t he t er m

“ i nt er t ext ual i t y ” i n her r eadi ngs of t he wor k of Bakht i n. I t

f i r s t appear s i n her essay “ Le mot , l e di al ogue et l e r oman”

( Semei ot i kè 143- 173) . 2 I n t hi s essay, she poi nt s out t hat

Bakht i n was t he f i r s t t o i nt r oduce t hi s not i on i nt o l i t er ar y

t heor y: al l t ext s ar e const r uct ed as a mosai c of c i t at i ons. She

t hen def i nes i nt er t ext ual i t y as, “ t out t ext e est absor pt i on et

t r ansf or mat i on d’ un aut r e t ext e” ( 146) . She uses t he not i on of

i nt er t ext ual i t y i n t he pl ace of t he not i on of i nt er subj ect i v i t y.

I n t hi s essay, Kr i st eva exami nes nar r at i on as a di al ogi c

mat r i x . She syst emat i zes Bakht i n by usi ng monol ogi c di scour se t o

r ef er t o epi c, hi s t or i cal di scour se and sc i ent i f i c di scour se, and

di al ogi c di scour se t o r ef er t o car ni val , sat i r e and t he

pol yphoni c novel ; t hese l at t er ar e al l t ext ual f or ms wher e

wr i t i ng r eads anot her wr i t i ng ( 158- 159) . Al t hough she f ol l ows

Bakht i n i n seei ng t he novel as comi ng out of t he end of t he

Mi ddl e Ages ( 133- 37) , she not es t hat t he pr ecur sor t o t he sat i r e

( i nc l udi ng t he anci ent Gr eek novel ) was t he Socr at i c di al ogue; i t

was ul t i mat el y t hese f or ms t hat l ed t o t he novel ( 164- 68) .

For Kr i s t eva i n t hi s essay, di al ogi sm si t uat es a

phi l osophi cal pr obl em i n l anguage, speci f i cal l y i n l anguage as a

cor r el at i on of t ext s ( 172) . We can see t he out s i de t ext br ought

i nt o t he t ext ei t her as r emi ni scence or as c i t at i on ( 194) . We

27

wi l l see f ur t her at t empt s t o deal wi t h t hi s pr obl em i n t he wor k

of Lot man, whi ch I wi l l di scuss bel ow.

Some of Kr i s t eva’ s wor k on poet i c t ext s i n t hi s essay i s

al so i nst r uct i ve i n exami ni ng her concept i on of i nt er t ext ual i t y.

She sees poet i c ut t er ances as a subset of t he t ext ual space: t he

poet i c s i gni f i ed i s def i ned as wher e many codes meet ; t hese codes

f i nd t hemsel ves i n a negat i ve r el at i onshi p t o each ot her . Moder n

poet i c t ext s absor b and dest r oy ( at t he same t i me) ot her t ext s of

t he i nt er t ext ual space; t he poet i c t ext i s pr oduced i n t he

s i mul t aneous af f i r mat i on and negat i on of anot her t ext ( 255- 57) .

Thi s not i on of t he s i mul t aneous absor pt i on and dest r uct i on of

t ext s wi l l become i mpor t ant i n t he t heor et i cal f r amewor k I wi l l

devel op l at er i n t hi s chapt er .

I n Le t ext e du r oman, Kr i s t eva f ur t her devel ops t he i dea of

i nt er t ext ual i t y. Fi r s t , she def i nes t he t ext as,

[ U] n appar ei l t r ansl i ngui s t i que que r edi st r i bue

l ’ or dr e de l a l angue, en met t ant en r el at i on une

par ol e communi cat i ve v i sant l ’ i nf or mat i on di r ect e,

avec di f f ér ent s t ypes d’ énoncés ant ér i eur s ou

synchr oni ques. ( 12)

The t ext i s t hus a “ pr oduct i vi t é; ” t hat i s , i t can cr oss l ogi cal

and mat hemat i cal cat egor i es beyond pur el y l i ngui st i c ones. I t i s

a per mut at i on of t ext s , an “ i nt er - t ext ual i t é: ” i n t he space of

one t ext many ut t er ances f r om ot her t ext s meet and neut r al i ze

each ot her ( an i dea devel oped f r om her ear l i er wor k i n

28

Semei ot i kè) . She t hen def i nes t he i deol ogeme ( i déol ogème) as

t he i nt er t ext ual f unct i on t hat appear s i n di f f er ent l evel s i n t he

st r uct ur e of each t ext : t he means by whi ch t he ut t er ances ar e

t r ansf or med i nt o t he whol e t ext ( 12, cf . Semei ot i kè 114) .

I n Le t ext e du r oman, Kr i s t eva f ur t her el abor at es on t he

wor k of Bakht i n. She poi nt s out t hat i n di al ogi sm, wr i t i ng

( l ’ écr i t ur e) i s mar ked as bot h subj ect i v i t y and communi cat i v i t y;

wr i t i ng i s ambi val ent ( 90) . She al so i ndi cat es t hat “ l e

di al ogi sme est i nhér ent au l angage méme” ( 89) . I n her di scuss i on

of t he novel , she i ndi cat es ( f ur t her i ng Bakht i n) t hat t he novel

wor ks i n t he i nt er t ext ual space; al l novel s ar e pol yphoni c ( 176) .

I n or der t o st udy how t he novel wor ks as a t r ansf or mat i on we have

t o l ook at t he t ext ual di al ogue ( di al ogue of many t ext s) , i . e. ,

t he i nt er t ext ual i t y. Her e she def i nes i nt er t ext ual i t y as t he

meet i ng and mut ual modi f i cat i on of t he uni t i es bel ongi ng t o

di f f er ent t ext s i n t he new t ext ( 68) . Fur t her , she def i nes

l i t er at ur e as al l di scour se t hat uses t he mode of i nt er t ext ual i t y

( 69) . Ther ef or e, al t hough she di scusses t he novel as t he pr i mar y

genr e t hr ough whi ch i nt er t ext ual i t y can oper at e, I t hi nk i t i s

possi bl e t o see her wor k as havi ng a wi der appl i cat i on.

Mi chael Ri f f at er r e

I n Ri f f at er r e’ s ear l i er wor k, he uses Pei r ce’ s semi ot i c

t heor i es i n or der t o f ocus on t he concept of t he i nt er pr et ant .

The i nt er pr et ant i s a t ext ual si gn, “ a f r agment of t hat t ext

act ual l y quot ed i n t he poem i t ser ves t o i nt er pr et , ” whi ch may be

29

a quot at i on mar ked as such, or may be a quot at i on not

di f f er ent i at ed f r om i t s new t ext ual cont ext ( Semi ot i cs 109) .

Ri f f at er r e di s t i ngui shes bet ween t wo t ypes of i nt er pr et ant s:

t ext ual i nt er pr et ant s and l exemat i c i nt er pr et ant s. Text ual

i nt er pr et ant s he def i nes as t ext s whi ch mi ght be ei t her quot ed or

al l uded t o; t hese t ext s can medi at e bet ween one semi ot i c code and

anot her . Lexemat i c i nt er pr et ant s he def i nes as wor ds whi ch mi ght

gener at e t wo t ext s or t wo hypogr ams ( syst ems of si gns)

s i mul t aneousl y . The i nt er pr et ant , t her ef or e, i s an i nt er t ext ual

s i gn, a si gn “ t hat t r ans l at es t he t ext ’ s sur f ace s i gns and

expl ai ns what el se t he t ext suggest s” ( Semi ot i cs 81) . When we

see t hat a t ext ( i nt er t ext ) i s ungr ammat i cal i n i t s semi ot i c

syst em, t hen we see t hat t hi s i nt er t ext bel ongs t o anot her

semi ot i c syst em ( Semi ot i cs 164) .

For Ri f f at er r e, l i t er at ur e i s an act of communi cat i on

gui ded by t hr ee r ul es: 1) t he act i s a game gui ded by t he t ext ;

2) t he game i s pl ayed accor di ng t o l i ngui s t i c r ul es; and 3)

r eal i t y and t he aut hor ar e t he t ext ’ s subst i t ut es. The t ext i s

bot h a l i mi t i ng and a pr escr i pt i ve code ( Pr oduct i on 10- 11) . I n

l ook i ng at t he i ssue of l i t er ar y hi s t or y and f or mal anal ys i s , he

suggest s t hat t he t wo appr oaches t o t he st udy of t he l i t er ar y

t ext ar e compl ement ar y. For mal anal ysi s of t he t ext when

combi ned wi t h l i t er ar y hi s t or y hel ps t o show t he ef f ect of t he

t ext on t he r eader ; f or hi m, t he or i gi nal meani ng of t he t ext i s

t he meani ng i t had f or i t s f i r st r eader s ( Pr oduct i on 89, 104- 5) .

30

We wi l l see bel ow t hat Lot man al so di scusses t he r el at i onshi p

of t ext and audi ence i n mor e det ai l .

The i mpor t ance of Ri f f at er r e’ s wor k f or t he pr obl em of

i nt er t ext ual i t y comes mai nl y f r om hi s i nsi st ence on t he

i mpor t ance of t he r eader i n t ext pr oduct i on. The r eader i s t he

onl y one who makes t he connect i on bet ween t he t ext , i nt er pr et ant

and i nt er t ext ( Semi ot i cs 164) . Thus l i t er ar y pr oduct i on i nc l udes

t he r eader and t he r eader ’ s r eact i ons as wel l as t he t ext ; and

t he l i t er ar y phenomenon i s not l ocat ed i n t he r el at i onshi p

bet ween t he aut hor and t he t ext but bet ween t he t ext and t he

r eader ( Pr oduct i on 9, 89) . Never t hel ess, r eadi ng i s r est r i c t i ve.

The r eader i s under t he gui dance and cont r ol of t he var i ous

i nt er t ext s ; when t he t ext act i vat es an i nt er t ext , i t cont r ol s t he

r eader ’ s r esponse, t hus mai nt ai ni ng t he t ext ’ s i dent i t y

( “ Compul sor y” 57) . Even so, r eadi ng i s al so unst abl e, and

“ i nt er pr et at i on i s never f i nal ” as t he t ext cannot be “ cor r ect or

amended” by t he r eader ( Semi ot i cs 165) . Text ual i t y and

i nt er t ext ual i t y cannot be separ at ed, i n Ri f f at er r e’ s v i ew,

because what t he t ext l eaves unsai d, t he i nt er t ext spel l s out

( “ I nt er t ext ual i t y” 781) .

Ri f f at er r e def i nes t he i nt er t ext as “ a t ext or ser i es of

t ext s sel ect ed as r ef er ent s by t he t ext we ar e r eadi ng. ”

Al t hough i t i s hi dden, we can i dent i f y i t f r om el ement s i n t he

t ext , and i n f act , we ar e i nvi t ed t o do so ( Fi ct i onal 86) . He

cal l s t he i nt er t ext t he “ unconsci ous of f i ct i on” ( Fi ct i onal 91) .

31

He suggest s t hat l i t er ar i ness can onl y be f ound wher e t ext s

combi ne or r ef er t o ot her t ext s on t he l evel of i nt er t ext ual i t y.

However , he al so poi nt s out t hat we must di s t i ngui sh bet ween

knowl edge of t he i nt er t ext ’ s f or m and cont ent and an awar eness

t hat an i nt er t ext ex i s t s , al t hough s i mpl y bei ng awar e may be

enough t o exper i ence t he l i t er ar i ness of t he t ext . We must al so

di st i ngui sh bet ween t he i nt er t ext and i nt er t ext ual i t y, whi ch he

def i nes as a “ web of f unct i ons t hat const i t ut es and r egul at es t he

r el at i onshi ps bet ween t ext and i nt er t ext ” ( “ Compul sor y” 56- 57) .

Ri f f at er r e suggest s t hat t her e ar e “ s i gnpost s, ” i . e. , wor ds or

phr ases t hat i ndi cat e an obscur i t y or di f f i cul t y i n t he t ext , and

wher e t he sol ut i on mi ght be f ound: t hese s i gnpost s l i nk t he t ext

and i nt er t ext . However , t he r eader can compensat e f or t he l oss

of t he i nt er t ext s si nce t hey ar e s t abi l i t i es i n t he t ext

( “ Compul sor y” 57- 58, 74) .

For Ri f f at er r e, t hen, unl i ke i n Kr i s t eva’ s wor k,

i nt er t ext ual i t y i s not somet hi ng t hat oper at es as an

i nt er r el at i onshi p bet ween al l t ext s, but r at her as somet hi ng t hat

oper at es as a r el at i onshi p bet ween speci f i c t ext s, t hr ough t he

t ool of t he i nt er pr et ant . I nt er t ext ual i t y i s not a f r ee- f l owi ng

concept , but r at her a “ s t r uct ur ed net wor k of t ext - gener at ed

const r ai nt s on t he r eader ’ s per cept i ons” ( “ I nt er t ext ual i t y ” 781) .

I nt er t ext ual i t y, accor di ng t o Ri f f at er r e, 1) exc l udes i r r el evant

dat a; 2) i s gener at ed by t ext ual i t y; 3) connect s exi st i ng t ext s

wi t h ot her t ext s ; 4) decont ext ual i zes t he t ext and f ocuses on i t s

32

l i t er ar i ness; and 5) i s a cl osed exchange bet ween t he t ext and

i nt er t ext ( “ I nt er t ext ual i t y” 786) . Thi s i s a way of l ooki ng at

i nt er t ext ual i t y not as a web, but r at her as an i nf i ni t e l i ne of

s i gni f i cat i on: a chai n. Accor di ng t o hi s model , t her ef or e, i t i s

not appr opr i at e t o pi ck t ext s r andoml y t o associ at e, but r at her

one must pi ck t ext s t hat seem al r eady t o be associ at ed i n some

way.

Rol and Bar t hes

I am pr i mar i l y concer ned wi t h Bar t hes ’ wor k as expr essed i n

S/ Z and i n t he ar t i c l e “ Text e ( Théor i e du) . ” I n t he ar t i c l e, he

di scusses t he t ext and i nt er t ext , and def i nes i nt er t ext ual i t y as

f ol l ows,

L’ i nt er t ext ual i t é, condi t i on de t out t ext e, quel qu’ i l

soi t , ne se r édui t évi demment pas à un pr obl ème de

sour ces ou d’ i nf l uences; l ’ i nt er t ext est un champ

génér al de f or mul es anonymes, dont l ’ or i gi ne est

r ar ement r epér abl e, de c i t at i ons i nconsci ent es ou

aut omat i ques données sans gui l l emet s. ( 1015)

The concept of i nt er t ext ual i t y , f or Bar t hes, makes t he t ext not a

“ r epr oduct i on” but a “ pr oduct i vi t y . ” But what i s t he t ext ? I t

i s not a l i t er ar y wor k per se, but r at her t he ent i r e f i el d of

l anguage, al t hough t he t ext i s onl y v i si bl e i n a l i t er ar y wor k.

The t ext i s a t i ssue or weavi ng ( 1015- 16) . Thi s way of l ook i ng

at t he t ext necessi t at es t he i nt r oduct i on of r eadi ng and t he

r eader ( “ [ L] a t héor i e du t ext e él ar gi t à l ’ i nf i ni t i l es l i ber t és

33

de l a l ect ur e. ” ) so t hat al l l i t er ar y wor ks may be r ead wi t h

each ot her . As wel l , Bar t hes ar gues t hat wr i t i ng and r eadi ng ar e

equi val ent i n t hei r pr oduct i vi t y ( 1016) .

I n S/ Z, Bar t hes wr i t es t hat i n or der t o i nt er pr et a t ext ,

one must appr eci at e t he pl ur al i t y f r om whi ch i t i s made. The

i deal t ext i s f or med of var i ous codes i nt er act i ng wi t hout one

bei ng super i or t o t he r est . Each code i s a voi ce, and t he t ext

i s woven or br ai ded f r om t he conver gence of t he codes. Bar t hes

names f i ve codes: t he voi ces of Empi r i cs, t he Per son, Sc i ence,

Tr ut h and Symbol ( 11- 12, 28) . For Bar t hes, t her e i s not hi ng

out s i de t he t ext , and l i t er at ur e i s a si ngl e t ext , what he cal l ed

a t ext wi t h a t housand ent r ances – when one ent er s t he t ext , one

ai ms f or a per spect i ve on ot her codes, or f r agment s ( 12, 19) .

Thi s i dea of t he t ext as bei ng sel f - cont ai ned i s , I t hi nk, now

passé; t he cont ext of l i t er ar y pr oduct i on i s now seen as al so

i mpor t ant . However , f or a t ext l i ke Chr oni c l es, when t he cont ext

of l i t er ar y pr oduct i on i s ext r emel y har d t o det er mi ne, l ooki ng at

t he sel f - cont ai ned t ext may be an i mpor t ant i nt er pr et i ve

st r at egy.

One of Bar t hes ’ mor e i nt er est i ng poi nt s i s t hat t he cr i t i c

shoul d r ead t he t ext not onl y as a f i r st r eadi ng but al so as a

r er eadi ng ( 22) . Thi s i s i mpor t ant , I t hi nk, because i t br i ngs

f or war d t he i dea t hat t he r eader of t he t ext i s f or med by a

pl ur al i t y of t ext s , even when t he t ext s ar e f or med by codes whose

or i gi ns ar e l ost ( 16) .

34

Jonat han Cul l er

I n The Pur sui t of Si gns, Cul l er of f er s a cr i t i que of ot her

wor k on i nt er t ext ual i t y; he al so of f er s suggest i ons of hi s own

about t he phenomenon. For hi m, i nt er t ext ual i t y has a doubl e

f ocus: 1) i t poi nt s out t he i mpor t ance of pr ev i ous t ext s ; i t

poi nt s out t hat t he not i on of t he aut onomy of t ext s i s

mi sl eadi ng, because t ext s have meani ng onl y because ot her t ext s

have been wr i t t en; and 2) i t l eads us t o consi der t he pr ev i ous

t ext s as cont r i but i ng t o a code whi ch makes meani ng poss i bl e. He

l ooks at i nt er t ext ual i t y as a name f or a t ext ’ s “ par t i ci pat i on i n

t he di scur si ve space of a cul t ur e” ( 103) . Ther ef or e,

i nt er t ext ual i t y i s not t he s t udy of sour ces or i nf l uences, but i s

wi der i n scope, i ncl udi ng codes t hat ar e now l ost t hat make

possi bl e t he meani ngs of l at er t ext s . He t hus suggest s t hat

t her e ar e good r easons t o excl ude t he st udy of al l us i on f r om

i nt er t ext ual i t y ( 103- 4) . However , he al so caut i ons t hat

r est r i ct i ng t he scope of i nt er t ext ual i t y f or t he pr act i cal

r easons of t ext ual anal ysi s i s not i nnocent , but r at her quest i ons

t he cl ai ms made f or t he concept of i nt er t ext ual i t y as a whol e.

I nt er t ext ual i t y i s meant t o be a gener al t heor y, but when i t i s

appl i ed, i t i s of t en nar r owed down t o such a poi nt t hat t he

gener al i t y of t he t heor y i s ar guabl e ( 105) . Thus he suggest s

t hat when we l ook at i nt er t ext ual i t y , we shoul d f ocus on “ t he

condi t i ons of meani ng i n l i t er at ur e” and “ r el at e a l i t er ar y wor k

t o a whol e ser i es of ot her wor ks, t r eat i ng t hem not as sour ces

35

but as const i t uent s of a genr e, f or exampl e, whose convent i ons

we at t empt t o i nf er ” ( 117) . I n t hi s way, we can l ook at

i nt er t ext ual i t y as a t ool f or exami ni ng t he pl ace of var i ous

l i t er ar y wor ks i n genr es. By l ook i ng at how t ext s i nt er r el at e,

we can see what t hey have i n common t hat we mi ght ot her wi se

over l ook. Thi s concept wi l l become ver y i mpor t ant as I at t empt

t o l ook at t he r el at i onshi p bet ween Chr oni c l es and t he Cyr opaedi a

i n t hi s di sser t at i on.

Cul l er makes some i nt er est i ng obser vat i ons about some of

t he ot her t heor i st s t hat I have al r eady di scussed. He poi nt s out

t hat Kr i st eva’ s pr ocedur e of l ooki ng at sour ce t ext s f or anal ysi s

of i nt er t ext ual space shows how t he concept of i nt er t ext ual i t y

l eads t o a concent r at i on on cases t hat quest i on t he gener al

t heor y of i nt er t ext ual i t y. Whi l e she cl ai med t hat meani ng i s

made possi bl e t hr ough a gener al i nt er t ext ual i t y, t hr ough her

exampl es we see t hat i nt er t ext ual i t y wor ks best when we can

i dent i f y t he pr et ext s. When deal i ng wi t h t he wor k of Ri f f at er r e,

he asks whet her t he r eader i s obl i ged t o per cei ve what Ri f f at er r e

di d i n t he t ext , or does t he r eader have f r eedom. He poi nt s out

t hat t her e i s a t ens i on i n Ri f f at er r e’ s wor k, bet ween hi s desi r e

bot h t o out per f or m ot her schol ar s, and hi s des i r e t o devel op a

semi ot i cs t hat expl ai ns how r eader s i nt er pr et ( 93- 94) .

The wor k of Har ol d Bl oom comes i n f or a good deal of

cr i t i c i sm i n Cul l er ’ s wor k. Al t hough Bl oom i ndi cat es t hat t ext s

ar e not a wr i t i ng but a r ewr i t i ng, and t hat we cannot wr i t e or

36

r ead wi t hout i mi t at i ng what ot her s have done, as i t has been

medi at ed by t he t r adi t i on ( Poet r y 2- 3; Map 32) , he shi f t s t he

f ocus f r om t he r el at i onshi p of t ext s t o t ext s or t ext s and

r eader s t o a f ocus on aut hor s and t ext s. For hi m, poet s at t empt

t o over come t hei r pr edecessor s, and t he not i on of i nf l uence means

t hat t ext s ar e pr oduced when one aut hor mi sr eads anot her ( Poet r y

2; Map 3; Anxi et y 30) . Bl oom i s onl y concer ned wi t h “ st r ong”

aut hor s, who st r uggl e wi t h t hei r “ st r ong” pr edecessor s; “ Weaker

t al ent s i deal i ze, f i gur es of capabl e i magi nat i on appr opr i at e f or

t hemsel ves” ( Anxi et y 5) . Cul l er poi nt s out t hat al l of t hi s put s

Bl oom at odds wi t h Kr i st eva, Bar t hes, Ri f f at er r e and t hei r l i ke,

and t hat what Bl oom i s doi ng i s a sear ch f or or i gi ns i n a si ngl e

pr ecur sor aut hor ( 108- 9) . Thi s i s anot her exampl e of what

happens when we make t he f ocus nar r ower : we under mi ne t he concept

of i nt er t ext ual i t y i t sel f , and make i t a vague sear ch f or

or i gi ns. We need t o use mul t i pl e st r at egi es of i nt er t ext ual

i nvest i gat i on, even t hough t hey may not l ead t o a synt hesi s,

accor di ng t o Cul l er ( 111) . I hope t hat my t heor et i cal f r amewor k

t hat I out l i ne l at er i n t hi s chapt er wi l l use mul t i pl e s t r at egi es

i n or der t o i nvest i gat e t he r el at i onshi p of Chr oni cl es and t he

Cyr opaedi a.

Ot her concept s

One concept t hat i s especi al l y per t i nent t o t he concer ns

her e wi t h t he i deal r ul er i s Mül l er ’ s concept of i nt er f i gur al i t y .

I n hi s ar t i c l e, he di scusses cases wher e char act er s or f i gur es

37

become i nt er t ext ual t hr ough a pl ay on t he name. However , t he

most i nt r i gui ng par t of hi s ar t i cl e deal s wi t h what he cal l ed “ an

ext r eme t ype, ” t he r e- use of a l i t er ar y f i gur e f r om one aut hor ’ s

wor k i nt o anot her ’ s. He poi nt s out t hat when an aut hor t akes

over anot her ’ s f i gur e, t he f i gur e i s adapt ed i nt o t he st r uct ur e

of t he new t ext , and i s put t o new uses ( 107) . One use i s

par ody, wher e t he f i gur e i n t he new t ext i s a par ody of t he

or i gi nal , whi ch under mi nes t he or i gi nal . He ar gues t hat i t i s

i mpor t ant t o r eal i ze t hat t he new f i gur e i s not a “ mer e

dupl i cat e” of t he or i gi nal , and t hat t her e i s a t ens i on cr eat ed

bet ween t he or i gi nal and t he new f i gur e ( 108- 9) . Ot her uses f or

i nt er f i gur al i t y i ncl ude sequel s ( ei t her wr i t t en by t he same

aut hor or by a di f f er ent one) , t ext s whi ch gr oup t oget her f i gur es

f r om a var i et y of pr e- t ext s, t ext s i n whi ch a char act er so

i dent i f i es wi t h a l i t er ar y f i gur e t hat he/ she l oses gr asp of

r eal i t y, and t ext s wi t hi n t ext s wher e f i gur es ar e r e- used.

However , t he most i mpor t ant use f or our pur poses her e i s par ody:

i t wi l l be possi bl e t o see some of t he f i gur es i n Chr oni cl es and

t he Cyr opaedi a as par odi es under mi ni ng t he or i gi nal char act er s.

John Fr ow t r i es t o t ake t he concept of i nt er t ext ual i t y

beyond t he s t udy of l i t er at ur e i nt o t he cul t ur al / soc i et al spher e,

and appl y i nt er t ext ual i t y t o soc i al s t r uct ur e. However , bef or e

he does so ( whi ch i s t he mai n poi nt of hi s ar t i c l e) , he def i nes

t en t heses wi t h r espect t o l i t er ar y i nt er t ext ual i t y, whi ch I

t hi nk ar e hel pf ul i n summar i zi ng t he var i ous concept s of

38

i nt er t ext ual i t y. By usi ng t he concept of i nt er t ext ual i t y we

under st and t hat : 1) t he t ext i s sel f - cont ai ned but di f f er ent i al

and hi st or i cal ; 2) t ext s ar e t r aces of ot her ness – t hey ar e

r epet i t i ons and t r ansf or mat i ons of ot her t ext s ; 3) t he absent

t ext s const r ai n t he t ext and ar e r epr esent ed by/ wi t hi n i t ; 4) t he

r epr esent at i on may be i mpl i c i t or expl i c i t ; 5) i nt er t ext ual

r ef er ence i mpl i es r ef er ence t o t he meani ngs st or ed i n a genr e; 6)

t he pr ocess of i nt er t ext ual i t y i n l i t er at ur e i s gover ned by t he

st r uct ur e of t he l i t er ar y syst em and t he aut hor i t y of t he canon;

7) t he t ext ’ s r el at i onshi p t o di scur s i ve aut hor i t y may not

r ef l ect aut hor i al i nt ent i on; 8) i dent i f y i ng an i nt er t ext i s an

i nt er pr et i ve act ; 9) i dent i f yi ng t he gener al genr e or i deol ogy of

t he sour ce- t ext i s mor e i mpor t ant t han i dent i f yi ng t he par t i cul ar

sour ce; and 10) i nt er t ext ual i t y i s di st i ngui shed f r om sour ce

cr i t i c i sm by i t s s t r ess on i nt er pr et at i on r at her t han mer e

i nf l uence or causal i t y ( 45- 46) .

When l ooki ng at what i nt er t ext ual t heor y has t o do wi t h

bi bl i cal s t udi es, Gar y Phi l l i ps has poi nt ed out t hat most

bi bl i cal schol ar s ar e act i vel y host i l e t o t he use of t heor y,

s i nce t hey t hi nk t hat t heor y obscur es t he t r ue t ask of t he

bi bl i cal exeget e, whi ch i s t o i nt er pr et t he t ext . Thi s l eads t o

bi bl i cal schol ar s gener al l y bei ng shut out of t he wi der debat es

i n l i t er ar y st udi es ( 79) . Phi l l i ps t hen devel ops a model of

i nt er t ext ual i t y based on Pei r ce’ s t r i adi c si gn, or unl i mi t ed

39

semi os i s , wher e t ext s f unct i on as i nt er pr et ant s t o ot her t ext s

( 83- 85) .

"Intertextuality" in ancient criticism

As I di scussed above, i nt er t ext ual i t y i s a concept

devel oped i n t he 20t h cent ur y. However , i n or der t o devel op f ul l y

t he hi st or i cal cont ext f or a s t udy of i nt er t ext ual i t y i n anci ent

l i t er at ur e, i n t hi s sect i on I wi l l di scuss concept s ak i n t o

i nt er t ext ual i t y i n anc i ent l i t er ar y cr i t i c i sm and t heor y. Thi s

di scussi on i s l i mi t ed t o Gr eek t ext s , wi t hout t he i ncl us i on of

mat er i al f r om t he Hebr ew- l anguage t r adi t i on, f or t wo r easons: 1)

t her e i s no t heor et i cal mat er i al on l i t er at ur e whi ch has sur vi ved

f r om t he pr e- r abbi ni c Hebr ew l anguage t r adi t i on, ei t her bi bl i cal

or ext r abi bl i cal ; 2) r abbi ni c mat er i al i s f ar out s i de t he t i me

f r ame whi ch I am usi ng.

Judi t h St i l l and Mi chael Wor t on suggest t hat t he concept of

mi mesi s i n Pl at o ( al ong wi t h ot her f eat ur es of hi s t hought ) mi ght

be seen as a pr ecur sor t o i nt er t ext ual i t y. They al so poi nt out

t hat t he f or m of t he Socr at i c di al ogue i s i nher ent l y i nt er t ext ual

( c f . Bakht i n, “ Epi c” 21- 25) . For t hem, Pl at o’ s phi l osophy i s

s i mi l ar t o Bakht i n’ s di al ogi sm ( whi ch wi l l be di scussed bel ow) ,

i n t hat bot h ar e “ ser i ous t r ut h seeki ng vi a a pl ur al i t y of voi ces

i n a speci f i c nar r at i ve cont ext and i n an i r oni c mode” ( 3) .

Al t hough we can see how Ar i s t ot l e devel oped hi s not i on of mi mesi s

40

f r om Pl at o ( Hal l i wel l 116- 23) , I woul d l i ke t o bypass t he

pur el y phi l osophi cal ar gument s i n or der t o f ocus on l i t er ar y

cr i t i c i sm. 3

Thr ee Gr eek t ext s deal i ng wi t h l i t er ar y cr i t i ci sm have

come down t o us i n some f or m f r om ant i qui t y: Ar i st ot l e’ s Poet i cs,

Longi nus’ On t he Subl i me, and Demet r i us’ On St yl e. Onl y

Ar i s t ot l e’ s wor k i s consi der ed t o be cor r ect l y at t r i but ed: bot h

On t he Subl i me and On St yl e ar e at t r i but ed convent i onal l y, but

i mpr oper l y . The Poet i cs dat es t o t he f our t h cent ur y BCE, t hus i t

i s r oughl y cont empor ar y wi t h t he Cyr opaedi a and Chr oni cl es. On

St yl e may be dat ed t o t he second cent ur y BCE ( see t he

i nt r oduct i on by I nnes) . On t he Subl i me may be dat ed t o t he f i r s t

cent ur y CE ( see t he i nt r oduct i on by Russel l ) .

Ar i s t ot l e: The Poet i cs

Ther e ar e t wo concept s i n t he Poet i cs t hat may l end

t hemsel ves t o a di scussi on of i nt er t ext ual i t y, al t hough nei t her

i s gi ven t hat sense exact l y: mi mesi s ( mi m ) and pl ot ( myt hos) .

Mi mesi s, i mi t at i on, has t wo senses i n t he Poet i cs, t he sense of

i mage- maki ng ( as i n a wor k of ar t ) and enact ment – t hi s i s t he

sense t hat Ar i st ot l e emphasi zed ( c f . Hal l i wel l 129- 31) ; i t i s one

of t he cor e concept s i n t he Poet i cs. 4 For Ar i s t ot l e, l i t er at ur e,

especi al l y t r agedy and epi c, was mi met i c . 5 Whet her we can expand

t hi s def i ni t i on of mi mesi s f r om t he i mi t at i on of f or ms t o i ncl ude

t he i mi t at i on of ear l i er wor ks of l i t er at ur e i s poss i bl e, but

i mpr obabl e i n Ar i s t ot l e’ s cont ext , s i nce t her e i s no expl i ci t

41

r ef er ence t o such r euse ot her t han i n t he mat t er of pl ot .

Ther e i s no r ef er ence t o r euse of f i gur es, t hemes, mot i f s,

l anguage et c . , whi ch we mi ght consi der hal l mar ks of

i nt er t ext ual i t y.

Pl ot , on t he ot her hand, i s somet hi ng t hat Ar i st ot l e deal t

wi t h mor e concr et el y . Whi l e deal i ng wi t h pl ot , Ar i s t ot l e made

ment i on of pl ot s whi ch ar e cr eat ed f r om t he aut hor ’ s i magi nat i on,

and pl ot s whi ch come f r om st or i es t hat ar e al r eady known. Wi t h

bot h t ypes, Ar i s t ot l e ar gued t hat t he aut hor shoul d use an

out l i ne, whi ch he t hen f i l l s i n wi t h epi sodes t hat advance t he

pl ot ( 55a34- 55b2) . Ar i s t ot l e saw no di f f er ence i n ef f ect bet ween

new and r e- used pl ot s, and i n f act s t at ed t hat t he aut hor need

not st i ck wi t h t he t r adi t i onal pl ot s but can f eel f r ee t o i nvent

hi s own ( 51b19- 25) . Then, he st at ed t hat “ even [ kai ] t he

f ami l i ar subj ect s ar e f ami l i ar onl y t o a mi nor i t y, yet

nonet hel ess pl ease ever yone” ( 51b25- 27) , whi ch suggest s ( al ong

wi t h t he r est of t hi s sect i on of ar gument ) t hat whi l e t he

expect ed t hi ng t o do i n hi s t i me was t o r e- use pl ot s , not

ever yone woul d be f ami l i ar wi t h t he ol d pl ot s, and woul d r ecei ve

t hem as i f t hey wer e new. St i l l and Wor t on have poi nt ed out t hat

Ar i s t ot l e’ s t hought i s associ at ed wi t h monol ogi sm i n Bakht i n’ s

wor k ( especi al l y i n “ Epi c” 5, 8) . However , t hey have al so

suggest ed t hat t he anci ent aut hor ’ s dr awi ng on a var i et y of

sour ces i mpl i es pol yphony ( 4) ; t o me, t hi s i s r eachi ng a bi t

f ur t her t han Ar i st ot l e’ s wor k r eal l y al l ows.

42

Al t hough Ar i st ot l e’ s ar gument s on pl ot out l i ned above

wer e or i gi nal l y meant t o appl y t o t r agedy and epi c ( he

speci f i cal l y separ at ed out hi s t or y f r om poet r y as a genr e i n

51a36- 51b8) , i t seems t o me t hat t hey mi ght be appl i ed t o ot her

anci ent l i t er ar y f or ms. I t i s c l ear , at any r at e, t hat t he use

and r e- use of pr ev i ous wor ks ( speci f i cal l y t he pl ot s of pr ev i ous

wor ks) was a known and accept ed phenomenon i n Ar i s t ot l e’ s day,

even t hough exact r el at i onshi ps per haps had not been t hought out .

“ Demet r i us” : On St yl e

The wor k of “ Demet r i us” deal s wi t h: 1) sent ence st r uct ur e;

and 2) t he Four St yl es of wr i t i ng/ or at or y. Under t he gr and st yl e

( megal opr ep ) , Demet r i us i nt r oduced t he concept of br i ngi ng

poet i c wor ds i nt o pr ose t ext s. He suggest ed t hat “ [ p] oet i c

vocabul ar y i n pr ose adds gr andeur [ …] ” but “ some wr i t er s i mi t at e

( mi m ) t he poet s qui t e cr udel y, or r at her , t hey do not i mi t at e

t hem but pl agi ar i se ( met at hesei ) t hem [ …] ” ( §112) . He cont r ast ed

Her odot us ( as a pl agi ar i st ) wi t h Thucydi des ( as a wr i t er of t he

gr and st yl e) , suggest i ng t hat Thucydi des di d not pl agi ar i ze, but

r at her used t he bor r owed vocabul ar y i n hi s own way and “ makes i t

hi s own pr oper t y” ( §113) . Thi s, t hen, suggest s t hat r euse of

wor ds i n a new cont ext was accept abl e i n Demet r i us ’ t i me, as

l ongs as t he wor ds f i t t he new cont ext and expr essed t he aut hor ’ s

message appr opr i at el y.

43

“ Longi nus” : On t he Subl i me

“ Longi nus” was concer ned wi t h t he expl i cat i on of t he

subl i me ( hypsos) i n l i t er at ur e, wher e t he subl i me i s seen as t r ue

gr eat ness t hat el evat es ( 7. 1- 4) . Accor di ng t o Longi nus, t her e

ar e many pat hs t o t he subl i me, one of whi ch i s t he “ [ z ] eal ous

i mi t at i on [ mi m ] of t he gr eat pr ose wr i t er s and poet s of t he

past , ” s i nce t he wr i t er s of t he past mi ght pr ovi de i nspi r at i on

f or t he cont empor ar y aut hor ( 13. 2) . He pr ov i ded exampl es of

“ Homer i c” aut hor s, i nc l udi ng Her odot us and especi al l y Pl at o

( 13. 3) . Thi s i mi t at i on of past wr i t er s he consi der ed especi al l y

appr opr i at e i n mat t er s of st yl e, and “ no t hef t ; i t i s r at her l i ke

t he r epr oduct i on of good char act er by scul pt ur es or ot her wor ks

of ar t ” ( 13. 4) . An aut hor or or at or , t hen, shoul d ask hi msel f

how pr ev i ous gr eat aut hor s and or at or s woul d have expr essed

somet hi ng; an aut hor shoul d ask hi msel f how t hat pr evi ous gr eat

aut hor woul d r espond t o hi s new wor k; and most i mpor t ant l y , an

aut hor shoul d ask hi msel f how post er i t y mi ght r ecei ve hi s wor k

( 14. 1- 3) . Di onysi us of Hal i car nassus seems al so t o have

subscr i bed t o t hi s t heor y; he sai d i n hi s Let t er t o Gnaeus

Pompei us t hat Xenophon model ed hi s wor k upon Her odot us ’ bot h i n

t er ms of subj ect and st y l e. Di onysi us especi al l y pr ai sed

Xenophon f or t he ar r angement of hi s mat er i al , t he pur i t y of hi s

vocabul ar y and t he char m of hi s wr i t i ng. However , Longi nus

suggest ed t hat whi l e Her odot us had subl i mi t y ( hypsos) , Xenophon

f el l shor t i n t hat r espect ( §4) . Ther ef or e, whi l e Ar i st ot l e was

44

concer ned wi t h t he r euse of pl ot s, and Demet r i us wi t h t he r euse

of vocabul ar y, her e we have a concer n wi t h t he r euse of st yl e;

agai n, i t was consi der ed hi ghl y appr opr i at e t o do so.

Intertextuality as dialogue 6

I n t hi s sect i on, I wi l l t ur n t o a di scussi on of t he

t heor i es of t ext ual i t y put f or war d by Bakht i n and Lot man. I t i s

pr i mar i l y upon t he wor k of t hese t wo schol ar s t hat I wi l l be

bui l di ng my t heor et i cal f r amewor k i n t he next sect i on. I n t hi s

sect i on, I wi l l al so be ar gui ng mor e di r ect l y f or t he appl i cat i on

of t hese 20t h cent ur y t heor i es t o anc i ent t ext s. I hope t o show

t hat i t i s not unr easonabl e, gi ven what pr esent ed above i n t he

sect i on on anci ent l i t er ar y cr i t i c i sm, t o devel op f r om t hese

moder n schol ar s a t heor y f or anc i ent t ext s .

Mi khai l Bakht i n

Bakht i n’ s wor k i s r i ch and var i ed, and f or t he pur poses of

t hi s di sser t at i on, I wi l l l i mi t mysel f t o dr awi ng on hi s wor k on

di al ogi sm and het er ogl ossi a. 7 Di al ogi sm i s def i ned pr i mar i l y i n

one of Bakht i n’ s ear l y wor ks, Pr obl ems of Dost oevsky ’ s Poet i cs.

Ther e he exami nes di al ogi sm i n t er ms of l i ngui st i cs, or mor e

pr ec i sel y, i n t er ms of met al i ngui s t i cs, whi ch he def i nes as

“ t hose aspect s i n t he l i f e of t he wor d [ …] t hat exceed – and

compl et el y l egi t i mat el y – t he boundar i es of l i ngui st i cs” ( 181) .

Di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps, f or Bakht i n, ar e out si de of pur el y

l i ngui st i c s t udy, t hat i s, ar e a mat t er f or met al i ngui st i cs

45

( 183) . For Bakht i n, t he wor d and t he i dea ar e by nat ur e

di al ogi c ; t he wor d and t he i dea want “ t o be hear d, under st ood and

‘ answer ed’ by ot her voi ces f r om ot her posi t i ons” ( Pr obl ems 88) .

The wor d and i dea ar e al so “ i nt er - i ndi vi dual and i nt er - subj ect i ve

– t he r eal m of i t s exi st ence i s not i ndi vi dual consci ousness, but

di al ogi c communi on bet ween consci ousnesses” ( Pr obl ems 88) .

However , t hi s r at her abst r act i dea of di al ogi sm can onl y be made

concr et e t hr ough l i ngui s t i c f or mul ae such as synt ax and semant i cs

- di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps ar e “ i mpossi bl e wi t hout l ogi cal

r el at i onshi ps or r el at i onshi ps or i ent ed t owar d a r ef er ent i al

obj ect ” ( Pr obl ems 184) . Di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps t hus cannot ex i st

i n t he abst r act ; t hey must become concr et e t hr ough t he ut t er ances

of t he aut hor . The aut hor uses hi s/ her ut t er ances t o expr ess a

posi t i on, t o whi ch ot her ut t er ances r espond ( Pr obl ems 184) .

Mi chael Hol qui st has poi nt ed out t hat t he r ecept i on of Bakht i n i n

t he West has f ocused on a j oyf ul , hopef ul and open di al ogi sm, but

al t hough t hose aspect s exi st i n Bakht i n’ s wor k, t her e ar e al so

dar ker , mor e s i ni s t er , aspect s t o di al ogi sm ( 181) .

Davi d Shepher d has suggest ed t hat Bakht i n had a st r ong

not i on of t he aut hor ’ s aut hor i t y over t he t ext ( 95) ; t hi s

separ at es Bakht i n f r om t he t heor i s t s ( Kr i s t eva, Bar t hes) , who

f ol l ow hi s wor k, but who posi t t he “ deat h of t he aut hor . ”

However , Shepher d al so ar gues t hat i n Bakht i n’ s wor k t her e i s a

st r ong f ocus on t he hi st or i cal and soci al si t uat i on of r eader s,

so t hat “ t he di al ogi c act of r eadi ng i s di sr upt i ve of t he

46

seemi ngl y f i xed posi t i ons of t ext and r eader ” ( 99) . Thi s

suggest s t hat al t hough Bakht i n had i deas about aut hor i al

aut hor i t y, t he ver y not i on of di al ogi sm br eaks down t hi s

concept . 8

Ken Hi r schkop asks i f t he not i on of di al ogi sm i s “ f or

r eal . ” He suggest s t hat we have been eager t o embr ace t he

concept of di al ogi sm because t he concept of di al ogue i s ver y

i mpor t ant i n a l i ber al democr acy. The poi nt of hi s essay i s t o

show t hat t her e i s a di f f er ence bet ween di al ogue and novel , and

t hus t her e i s a di f f er ence bet ween di al ogue and di al ogi sm: t hey

ar e not t he same t hi ngs ( 183- 84) . By doi ng so, Hi r schkop woul d

seem t o be cont r adi c t i ng t hose who see t he or i gi ns of di al ogi sm

( and hence i nt er t ext ual i t y ) i n such t hi ngs as t he Socr at i c

di al ogues, and t hose who see di al ogi sm i n mi dr ashi c exegesi s . He

poi nt s out t hat i n a di al ogi c novel , al l of t he speech posi t i ons

have t o be r epr esent ed by a si ngl e aut hor , t hus t he openness of

t r ue di al ogue i s not pr esent ( 189) . What di al ogi sm does do i s

br i ng i n “ ever yday” speech- t ypes i nt o t he novel , “ endow[ i ng] so-

cal l ed popul ar or ever yday l anguage wi t h an hi st or i cal or soci al

s i gni f i cance i t l acks i n i t s ever yday cont ext ” ( 190) . He ar gues

t hat al t hough Bakht i n t r i ed t o ext end di al ogue wi t h t he concept

of di al ogi sm, i n f act he showed t he l i mi t at i ons of di al ogue by

showi ng al l t hat novel s can achi eve wi t hout bei ng di al ogues.

Di al ogi sm i s not t he be- al l and end- al l , but r at her one f or m of

r epr esent at i on i n di scour se ( 192- 93, 195) . Thi s i s an i mpor t ant

47

cor r ect i ve, I t hi nk, t o an over - ent husi asm t o make al l t hi ngs

di al ogi c , whi l e st i l l showi ng t hat di al ogi sm i s a meani ngf ul

concept .

Bakht i n devel oped hi s t heor i es about di al ogi sm based on

Dost oevsky ’ s novel s. As I not ed above, we mi ght wonder about t he

val i di t y of us i ng t heor i es based on 19t h cent ur y novel s on

c l assi cal and bi bl i cal l i t er at ur e. I n t hi s chapt er , I wi l l ar gue

t hat Bakht i n ant i c i pat ed t hat hi s t heor i es about di al ogi sm coul d

have wi der appl i cat i ons beyond t he novel s of t hi s one par t i cul ar

aut hor . I ndeed, i n hi s l at er wor ks he expands di al ogi sm t o

i ncl ude al l novel s , i n hi s essay “ Di scour se i n t he Novel . ”

Towar ds t he end of hi s l i f e, he deal t wi t h t he even wi der

i mpl i cat i ons of di al ogi sm i n hi s essay “ The Pr obl em of t he Text , ”

wher e he descr i bes di al ogi sm as,

Conf i dence i n anot her ’ s wor d, r ever ent i al r ecept i on

[ …] , appr ent i ceshi p, t he sear ch f or and mandat or y

nat ur e of deep meani ng, agr eement , i t s i nf i ni t e

gr adat i ons and shadi ngs [ …] , t he l ayer i ng of meani ng

upon meani ng, voi ce upon voi ce, st r engt heni ng t hr ough

mer gi ng, t he combi nat i on of many voi ces [ …] t hat

augment s under st andi ng, depar t ur e beyond t he l i mi t s of

t he under st ood [ …] . ( 121)

I f we t ake Bakht i n’ s t hought s on t he subj ect as t hey devel oped,

we coul d ar gue t hat di al ogi sm coul d be appl i ed t o al most any

l i t er ar y t ext . However , even i n Pr obl ems of Dost oevsky’ s

48

Poet i cs, he begi ns t o gener al i ze hi s speci al i zed t heor y i n ways

t hat can be speci f i cal l y appl i ed t o t he Bi bl e; he not es i n hi s

di scussi on of t he di al ogi c t hat ,

[ T] he f or ms of t hi s r eal aut hor shi p can be ver y

di ver se. A gi ven wor k can be t he pr oduct of a

col l ect i ve ef f or t , i t can be cr eat ed by t he successi ve

ef f or t s of gener at i ons, and so f or t h – but i n al l

cases we hear i n i t a uni f i ed cr eat i ve wi l l , a

def i ni t e pos i t i on t o whi ch i t i s poss i bl e t o r eact

di al ogi cal l y . ( 184)

What wor k does t hi s descr i be i f not t he Bi bl e as a whol e or i t s

component books l i ke Chr oni c l es? For Bakht i n, t hen, t he i ns and

out s of t he composi t i on of t he ut t er ance ( t he book) woul d not

mat t er , si nce t he r esul t i s one speci f i c pos i t i on. Thi s way of

exami ni ng a composi t e t ext l i ke t he Bi bl e as a whol e or

Chr oni cl es mor e speci f i cal l y can be ver y l i ber at i ng; no l onger i s

t he i nt er pr et er bound t o exami ne each bl ock of t ext as det er mi ned

by hi s t or i cal - cr i t i cal schol ar shi p. As l ong as we agr ee t hat t he

basi c i nt ent and message per vades t he ent i r e wor k, we can exami ne

t he ent i r e wor k as one l i t er ar y posi t i on. 9

Di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps can oper at e on t he mi cr o l evel of

i ndi vi dual wor ds or speeches wi t hi n a wor k ( whi ch Bakht i n

descr i bes as het er ogl oss i a, see bel ow) , or t hey can oper at e on

t he macr o l evel of r el at i onshi ps bet ween ent i r e wor ks, as l ong as

we can hear t wo voi ces oper at i ng. Accor di ng t o Bakht i n, t her e

49

can even be di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps wi t hi n one aut hor ’ s t ext , i f

t he aut hor shi p i s di vi ded i nt o t wo i nner voi ces. Fi nal l y,

Bakht i n poi nt s out t hat di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps ar e possi bl e even

bet ween wor ks i n di ssi mi l ar medi a, as l ong as t her e i s some ki nd

of semi ot i c expr essi on ( Pr obl ems 184- 185) .

Het er ogl ossi a i n Bakht i n i s def i ned as t he var i et y of

speech t ypes t hat make up t he novel . Thi s i s how di al ogi c

r el at i onshi ps ( i . e. di f f er ent posi t i ons) can ent er t he novel

i t sel f , t hr ough t he di f f er ences i n aut hor i al and nar r at or i al

speech, t he speech of char act er s, i nser t ed genr es, and so on.

The novel i s i nher ent l y a di al ogi c f or m ( “ Di scour se” 263) . 10

Agai n, what do we have i n t he Bi bl e, and mor e speci f i cal l y , i n

Chr oni cl es, i f not het er ogl ossi a? Chr oni c l es cont ai ns many ki nds

of speech, some of whi ch over l ap: t he Chr oni cl er ’ s speech, t he

nar r at or ’ s speech, t he speeches of t he var i ous char act er s, and

t he i nser t ed sect i ons t hat par al l el t he aut onomous wor k of

Samuel - Ki ngs. Wi t h such a var i et y of speech t ypes, Chr oni cl es

must be i nher ent l y di al ogi c: t her e must be a var i et y of wor ds and

i deas want i ng answer s f r om ot her pos i t i ons. However , we coul d

ar gue t hat al l of t hese speech t ypes ar e adapt ed i nt o t he

Chr oni cl er ’ s speech pl an and t hat t her ef or e t her e woul d be t i ght

aut hor i al cont r ol over t he het er ogl ossi a ( cf . Bakht i n, “ Speech

Genr es” ) .

But ar e Chr oni cl es and t he Cyr opaedi a novel s? I f we t ake

Bakht i n’ s descr i pt i on of t he novel i n hi s essay “ Epi c and Novel , ”

50

t hen Chr oni c l es and t he Cyr opaedi a i n some sense do appear t o

be novel s. For Bakht i n, t he novel i s di st i ngui shed by t hr ee

char act er i st i cs: 1) i t s st yl i s t i c t hr ee di mensi onal i t y ( i . e. ,

di al ogi sm) ; 2) i t s abi l i t y t o change t he t empor al i t y of t he

“ l i t er ar y i mage” ( i . e. , t al k i ng about t he past as t he past and

not as some cont i nuous “ now” ) ; and 3) i t s abi l i t y t o make t he

past cont act t he pr esent ( i . e. , al t hough t he past i s depi c t ed,

t he st ar t i ng poi nt and concer ns come f r om t he pr esent ) . The

novel t akes t he f or m of di al ogues f r amed by a st or y, whi ch i s

al so di al ogi zed ( “ Epi c” 11- 30) . Chr oni c l es has het er ogl ossi a and

di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps by vi r t ue of i t s var i et y of speech t ypes.

I t descr i bes t he t i me of t he k i ngs as t he def i nabl e past , not i n

t er ms of some “ once upon a t i me” past ; and i t s cont empor ar y

concer ns f or t empl e, I sr ael and Davi di c ki ng ar e depi c t ed i n

t er ms of t he past . Al t hough i n Chr oni cl es t he f r ami ng st or y

seems t o t ake pr ecedence over t he speeches of t he char act er s, t he

basi c f or m of Bakht i n’ s novel pr evai l s. Chr oni c l es can i ndeed be

seen as an ear l y novel or a pr ot o- novel . The Cyr opaedi a al so has

a var i et y of speech t ypes; i t descr i bes t he t i me of Cyr us as t he

def i nabl e past ; and i t s cont empor ar y concer ns f or pr oper r ul er s

and a phi l osophy of r ul i ng ar e depi c t ed i n t er ms of t he past .

The Cyr opaedi a al so has a good number of speeches, so t hat t her e

i s mor e of t he novel i s t i c f or m of di al ogues f r amed by a st or y

t han i n Chr oni cl es. Now, Bakht i n i mpl i ed t hat t he Bi bl e as a

whol e was par t of t he epi c t r adi t i on r at her t han t he novel i s t i c,

51

a cl ai m t hat I accept wi t h some r eser vat i ons. However ,

Chr oni cl es i s not l i ke most of t he r est of t he Bi bl e: i t i s not a

pr ose epi c ( as we mi ght descr i be Genesi s t hr ough 2 Ki ngs) . I n

t he same way, Est her , Rut h and Dani el ar e not pr ose epi cs but

wel l - cr af t ed s t or i es expr ess i ng cont empor ar y concer ns.

Concer ni ng t he Cyr opaedi a, Bakht i n hi msel f consi der ed i t an ear l y

f or m of t he novel , say i ng, “ Cyr opaedi a i s a novel , i n t he most

basi c sense of t he wor d” ( “ Epi c” 29) . 11 Ther ef or e, i f we can

accept Chr oni c l es as bei ng some ki nd of ear l y exempl ar of t he

novel as wel l , t hen we have t aken t he f i r s t st ep t owar ds

accept i ng and under st andi ng t he di al ogi c and het er ogl oss i c

r el at i onshi ps of bot h Chr oni cl es and t he Cyr opaedi a.

However , t her e i s a l i ne of t hought t hat suggest s Bakht i n’ s

under st andi ng of t he novel i s t i c genr e was f l awed. R. B. Br anham

ar gues t hat t he Gr eek r omances/ novel s ar e not novel i st i c

accor di ng t o Bakht i n’ s own cr i t er i a; he suggest s t hat t he Gr eek

novel was “ a moder ni zed ver s i on of t he ‘ absol ut e past ’ of epi c”

( 84) . The Gr eek novel , t hen, accor di ng t o t hi s vi ew, i s a br i dge

bet ween t he epi c and t he t r ue novel t hat devel oped i n Lat i n

l i t er at ur e ( t he wor ks of Pet r oni us ar e gi ven as an exampl e) .

Br anham suggest s t hat t hi s r ef i nement or r ef or mul at i on of Bakht i n

“ woul d r equi r e us t o hi s t or i ci ze hi s t heor y of t he novel ’ s

or i gi ns [ …] ” ( 87) . I f we accept Br anham’ s v i ew, t hen Chr oni cl es

and t he Cyr opaedi a can st i l l be seen as pr ecur sor s t o t he novel ,

but at a much ear l i er st age i n novel i st i c devel opment , and

52

wi t hout al l of t he f eat ur es of t he t r ue het er ogl ossi c novel .

Hol qui st , however , poi nt ed out t hat Bakht i n made a di s t i nct i on

bet ween t he novel and novel ness: t he f or mer has i t s hi st or y i n

l i t er ar y hi s t or y , and t he l at t er has i t s hi s t or y i n t he hi st or y

of human consci ousness ( 72- 73) .

Yur i Lot man

Now I woul d l i ke t o t ur n away f r om Bakht i n t owar ds t he wor k

of Lot man. Lot man cer t ai nl y knew Bakht i n’ s wor k, and i n many

pl aces bui l t hi s own upon i t . Bot h Al l an Rei d and Davi d Bet hea

have di scussed Lot man’ s r el at i onshi p t o Bakht i n’ s wor k. Rei d

poi nt s out t hat i t appear s t hat i n t he mi d- 1970s Lot man

di scover ed and f ami l i ar i zed hi msel f wi t h t he wor k of Bakht i n. At

t hi s poi nt Lot man began t o move away f r om a st at i s t i cal - semi ot i c

appr oach t o t ext s and t o move t owar ds a devel opment of Bakht i n’ s

posi t i ons ( Li t er at ur e 36- 37) . 12 Bet hea suggest s t hat al t hough

Lot man l ear ned f r om Bakht i n’ s wor k and devel oped hi s own l at er

wor k usi ng Bakht i n’ s ar gument s, 13 he r emai ned “ ver y much hi s own

t hi nker . ” He suggest s t hat Lot man coul d be seen as a t heor i st of

poet r y whi l e Bakht i n was a t heor i s t of t he novel . Lot man was

i nt er est ed i n poet i c t hi nk i ng whi l e Bakht i n was i nt er est ed i n

pr osai cs; Lot man came t o see “ [ t ] he connect i on bet ween l i f e and

ar t , t ext and code [ …] [ as] gener at i ve of meani ng – t he ul t i mat e

semi ot i c gest ur e” ( 2) . Bet hea di scusses how Lot man was abl e t o

use t he “ openness” of Bakht i ni an t hought i n or der t o open up hi s

own cl osed semi ot i c syst ems, t hus showi ng how Bakht i n coul d have

53

used Lot man’ s under st andi ng of t ext and code t o “ t i ght en up”

hi s t hi nki ng ( 4- 5) . 14 Al t hough much of Lot man’ s wor k has not been

t r ansl at ed, some of i t has, and I wi l l be dr awi ng upon some of

t hi s i n or der t o r ef i ne and expand Bakht i n’ s concept s of

di al ogi sm and het er ogl ossi a.

Among ot her t hi ngs, Lot man was i nt er est ed i n t ext ual i t y;

t hat i s, t he f or m and f unct i on of t ext s. I n one wor k, he def i nes

t he t ext ’ s f unct i ons as t r ansmi ssi on and gener at i on: t he

t r ansmi ssi on of t he message and t he gener at i on of new messages.

I n or der f or t he message t o be t r ansmi t t ed per f ect l y , bot h t he

aut hor and audi ence have t o have whol l y i dent i cal semi ot i c codes,

whi ch Lot man c l ai ms i s al most i mpossi bl e. That gap bet ween t he

t r ansmi ssi bl e and t he i nt r ansmi ssi bl e i s what al l ows t he t ext t o

cr eat e or gener at e new meani ngs ( “ Text ” 377- 384) . I n hi s l at er

wor k, he adds a t hi r d f unct i on, memor y, whi ch he descr i bes as t he

t ext ’ s abi l i t y t o condense cul t ur al memor y and t o be i nt er pr et ed

- t he t ext acqui r es new meani ngs t hr ough t he hi s t or y of

i nt er pr et at i on ( Uni ver se 18) .

Lot man br i ngs t he audi ence of t he t ext much mor e t o t he

f or ef r ont : he cl ai ms t hat “ as a gener at or of meani ng [ …] t he t ext

needs an i nt er l ocut or ” ( “ Text ” 378; c f . Bakht i n, “ Speech Genr es”

94) . Thi s i nt er l ocut or coul d be an audi ence or a consci ousness

or anot her t ext . When t he addr esser sends a message t o t he

addr essee15 i n a subj ect - obj ect t r ansmi ssi on, what Lot man cal l s an

“ I - S/ he” t r ansmi ss i on, t he message i s t r ansmi t t ed i n space

54

( Uni ver se 20- 21) . However , when t he addr esser sends a message

t o t he addr essee i n a subj ect - subj ect t r ansmi ssi on, what Lot man

cal l san “ I - I ” t r ansmi ssi on, t he message i s t r ansmi t t ed not i n

space but i n t i me. Lot man cal l s t hi s “ aut ocommuni cat i on”

( Uni ver se 21) . 16 I n I - S/ he t r ansmi ssi on, t he message i s s t at i c,

but i n I - I t r ansmi ss i on, t he message i s dynami c: i t acqui r es new

meani ngs i n t he communi cat i on pr ocess. The or i gi nal message i s

suppl ement ed or has a new meani ng i mposed upon i t , or t he meani ng

of t he message i s t r ansf or med ( Uni ver se 22) . However , even i n

aut ocommuni cat i on t her e i s an audi ence, t he new subj ect , f or t he

message.

Not onl y does Lot man pr esuppose an audi ence f or t he t ext ,

he ar gues t hat t he audi ence and t ext i nt er act . For hi m, not onl y

does t he t ext have an i dea of i t s own i deal r eader shi p, but al so

t he r eader shi p has an i dea of i t s own i deal t ext . The t ext and

audi ence must shar e an i nt er pr et i ve code ( Uni ver se 63- 64) . The

r el at i onshi p bet ween t he t ext and audi ence i s not a pass i ve one

( r ecept i on of t he t ext by t he audi ence) , but r at her i s di al ogi c;

“ [ d] i al ogi c speech i s di st i ngui shed not onl y by t he common code

of t wo j uxt aposed ut t er ances, but al so by t he pr esence of a

common memor y shar ed by addr esser and addr essee” ( “ Text and t he

St r uct ur e” 81) . Tr adi t i on i s of t en one of t he i nt er pr et i ve

codes. Lot man def i nes t r adi t i on as a syst em of t ext s i n t he

cul t ur al memor y; any t ext i s f i l t er ed t hr ough t he code of

t r adi t i on, t hat i s , t hr ough ot her t ext s t hat ser ve as

55

i nt er pr et er s ( Uni ver se 70- 71) . However , of t en an audi ence wi l l

change, and t hi s wi l l f or ce a change i n t he way t he t ext

const r uct s i t s i deal r eader shi p: t ext shapes r eader shapes t ext .

The r el evance of t he f or egoi ng t o t he r el at i onshi p bet ween

Samuel - Ki ngs and Chr oni c l es i s , I hope, cl ear . When Samuel - Ki ngs

and i t s audi ence or a por t i on of i t no l onger suf f i c i ent l y shar ed

an i nt er pr et i ve code, such as t r adi t i on, t hen t he audi ence

r eshaped i t s t ext and i n ef f ect gener at ed a new one, Chr oni c l es.

Chr oni cl es was t he r esul t of aut ocommuni cat i on, a message sent

t hr ough t i me t o i t s addr essee, t he new wr i t i ng subj ect . The

Cyr opaedi a al so can be seen as t he r esul t of aut ocommuni cat i on,

wher e t he new t ext had a di f f er ent pur pose t han t he t ext s of

Her odot us and Ct es i as, and hence a di f f er ent audi ence.

Fi nal l y, Lot man al so deal s wi t h one of t he pr obl ems of

Chr oni cl es: t he t ext wi t hi n t he t ext ; hi s t hought on t hi s pr obl em

devel oped t hr ough t i me. I n hi s ear l i er wor k, “ Pr obl ems i n t he

Typol ogy of Text s, ” Lot man poi nt s out t hat t he t ext wi t hi n t he

t ext acqui r es an ar t i s t i c f unct i on even t hough i t may have

or i gi nal l y bel onged t o anot her t ypol ogi cal syst em ( e. g. , l egal ) ;

i t i s r ei nt er pr et ed ( 120) . Even i n t hi s ear l i er ( pr e-

Bakht i ni an?) wor k, Lot man seems t o have been l ooki ng at t he

pr obl em f r om a di al ogi c per spect i ve. Lat er , i n The St r uct ur e of

t he Ar t i st i c Text , he di scusses t ext ual boundar i es and r emar ks

t hat t r ansf er r i ng a t ext ual f eat ur e t o anot her t ext “ i s one of

56

t he essent i al met hods f or f or mi ng new meani ngs” ( 52) . I n hi s

l at er essay, “ The Text Wi t hi n t he Text , ” he not es t hat ,

The i nt r oduct i on of an ext er nal t ext i nt o t he i mmanent

wor l d has f ar - r eachi ng consequences. The ext er nal

t ext i s t r ansf or med i n t he s t r uct ur al f i el d of t he

ot her t ext ’ s meani ng, and a new message i s cr eat ed.

( “ Text ” 378; c f . Bakht i n, “ Speech Genr es” 62)

Thi s i s sel f - evi dent ; i n t he t er ms of t he Samuel - Ki ngs- Chr oni c l es

r el at i onshi p, when a sour ce t ext f r om Samuel - Ki ngs i s i nt r oduced

i nt o Chr oni c l es, t hat sour ce t ext i s t r ansf or med by t he t ext of

Chr oni cl es. What Lot man goes on t o say i s t hat “ t he

t r ansf or mat i on occur s not onl y wi t hi n t he ent er i ng t ext ; t he

ent i r e semi ot i c si t uat i on i nsi de t he ot her t ext i s al so changed”

( “ Text ” 379) . I n t er ms of Samuel - Ki ngs- Chr oni cl es, not onl y i s

t he sour ce t ext f r om Samuel - Ki ngs t r ansf or med, but t he meani ng of

t he t ext of Chr oni cl es i s al so changed. Thi s st at ement was

ant i ci pat ed by Vol oš i nov/ Bakht i n i n Mar x i sm and t he Phi l osophy of

Language wher e i t i s ar gued ( i n t he l anguage of Lot man) t hat t he

ot her t ext ( Chr oni cl es) t r i es t o br eak down t he ext er nal t ext

( Samuel - Ki ngs) , t o obl i t er at e i t s boundar i es, whi l e t he ext er nal

t ext ( Samuel - Ki ngs) t r i es t o over come t he ot her t ext ( Chr oni cl es)

( 120- 121; cf . Bakht i n, “ Speech Genr es” 92) . 17 Ther ef or e, bot h t he

synopt i c por t i ons of Samuel - Ki ngs- Chr oni cl es and t he sur r oundi ng

t ext of Chr oni cl es ar e changed i n meani ng by t hei r i nt er act i on.

Chr oni cl es cr eat es new i nf or mat i on by t he i nt er act i on of i t s

57

synopt i c and non- synopt i c por t i ons. Because t he Cyr opaedi a

does not have t ext - wi t hi n- a- t ext , as does Chr oni cl es, i t i s mor e

di f f i cul t t o use t hi s por t i on of Lot man’ s wor k when deal i ng wi t h

i t .

Outline of the theoretical framework

I f we br i ng t oget her t he wor k by Bakht i n and Lot man t hat I

have pr esent ed, i t i s al l l eadi ng t owar ds t he t er m whi ch so f ar I

have del i ber at el y avoi ded i n my di scussi on of t he wor k of Bakht i n

and Lot man: i nt er t ext ual i t y. Bakht i n never used t hi s t er m. The

cl osest he came t o i t was i n t he essay " The Pr obl em of t he Text , "

wher e he descr i bes t he t ext as “ a uni que monad t hat i n i t sel f

r ef l ect s al l t ext s … of a gi ven spher e. The i nt er connect i on of

al l i deas ( s i nce al l ar e r eal i zed i n ut t er ances) . The di al ogi c

r el at i onshi ps among t ext s and wi t hi n t he t ext ” ( “ Pr obl em of t he

Text ” 105) . I n t hi s sect i on, I wi l l out l i ne my model of a

di al ogi c i nt er t ext ual i t y , whi ch I wi l l use f or t he anal ysi s of

t he t ext s of Chr oni c l es and t he Cyr opaedi a.

I n t he chapt er s t hat f ol l ow, I wi l l be usi ng a t heor et i cal

f r amewor k devel oped f r om t he above sect i on, i . e. , i nt er t ext ual i t y

as di al ogue, but I wi l l al so make use of t he i ns i ght s of t he

ot her aut hor s I di scussed whi l e di scussi ng t he concept s of

i nt er t ext ual i t y. I n t hi s di sser t at i on i nt er t ext ual i t y wi l l be

def i ned as: t he i nt er r el at i onshi p of t ext s , i ncl udi ng, but not

l i mi t ed t o, t he absor pt i on, r ewr i t i ng, r euse and di al ogue of t ext

58

wi t h t ext . The t ext i s t he wor k whi ch absor bs, r ewr i t es or

r euses; t he i nt er t ext i s t he wor k whi ch i s absor bed, r ewr i t t en or

r eused – i n Lot man’ s t er ms, t he t ext wi t hi n t he t ext , i n

Ri f f at er r e’ s t er ms, t he t ext ( s) sel ect ed as r ef er ent ( s) by t he

t ext . Kr i st eva’ s not i on t hat t he t ext absor bs and dest r oys t he

i nt er t ext i s ext r emel y i mpor t ant : i t i s t he f i r s t st ep t o seei ng

t he t ext and i nt er t ext i n a di al ogi c r el at i onshi p. However ,

r at her t han seei ng i nt er t ext ual i t y as a f r ee- f l owi ng web ( l i ke

Kr i st eva and Bar t hes) , I see i nt er t ext ual i t y as a st r uct ur ed

net wor k connect i ng t ext s and i nt er t ext s whi ch ar e al r eady

associ at ed ( l i ke Ri f f at er r e) . Bar t hes’ i dea of l ook i ng at t he

sel f - cont ai ned t ext al l ows us t o put asi de t he t ext ’ s cont ext f or

a moment i n or der t o f ocus on t he t ext i t sel f ; Lot man’ s wor k

r emi nds us t hat we need t o keep t he cont ext al ways i n mi nd. Wi t h

Cul l er , I see t he pur pose of t he s t udy of i nt er t ext ual i t y t o be

most acut e i n t he st udy of genr e: by l ooki ng at t he t ext ual

i nt er r el at i onshi ps, we can see t ext ual commonal t i es. Mül l er ’ s

concept of i nt er f i gur al i t y i s hel pf ul when we consi der t hat i n

t hi s di sser t at i on I wi l l be exami ni ng t he f i gur e of t he i deal

r ul er t hat i s r eused f r om i nt er t ext t o t ext . Especi al l y hel pf ul

i s t he r eal i zat i on t hat t her e i s a t ensi on cr eat ed bet ween t he

or i gi nal and t he new f i gur e, not abl y a par odi c r el at i onshi p.

When we br i ng i n t he wor k of Bakht i n and Lot man, we br i ng

i n t he i dea of di al ogi sm and i t s r ef i nement s. Di al ogi sm i nvol ves

t he r el at i onshi ps bet ween ut t er ances, whet her i nsi de or bet ween

59

t ext s. The wor d or i dea i n an ut t er ance i s a posi t i on, whi ch

can be answer ed by ot her ut t er ances. Speeches and i nser t ed t ext s

ar e i n a di al ogi c r el at i onshi p wi t h t he sur r oundi ng t ext , and

mut ual l y shape each ot her and change each ot her ’ s meani ng. The

ut t er ance as an ent i r e t ext accept s speeches and i nser t ed t ext s

i nt o t he speech pl an, whi ch t he t ext al r eady has. As wel l , when

t he ut t er ance i s an ent i r e t ext , t hat t ext t r ansmi t s i t s message

not onl y t hr ough space but al so t hr ough t i me. The audi ence of

t he t ext r ecei ves t he t r ansmi ssi on and gener at es new meani ngs so

t hat t ext and r eader s mut ual l y shape each ot her , j ust as

ut t er ances or t ext s mut ual l y shape each ot her . When we add t hi s

t o t he i deas f r om Kr i s t eva, Ri f f at er r e, Bar t hes, Cul l er and

Mül l er , we have devel oped a concept of di al ogi c i nt er t ext ual i t y

t hat t akes i nt o consi der at i on t he movement of t ext s and f i gur es

t hr ough space, t i me, and di scour se. When I anal yze t he t ext s, I

wi l l be put t i ng as i de t he cont ext dur i ng t he anal ysi s, but t he

cont ext wi l l t hen be br ought back i nt o t he di scuss i on when I

di scuss t he i mpl i cat i ons of t he anal ysi s i n my concl us i ons.

Genre, and the genre of the texts

Ul t i mat el y , a l ot of what I am goi ng t o say about bot h t he

Cyr opaedi a and Chr oni c l es has t o do wi t h genr e. I n t hi s sect i on,

I wi l l br i ef l y out l i ne my pr esupposi t i ons about genr e i n gener al

and t he genr es of f i ct i on, hi s t or i ogr aphy and ( pol i t i cal )

phi l osophy i n par t i cul ar , t hen I wi l l l ook at t he genr e of

60

Chr oni cl es and t he Cyr opaedi a. Her e I am i nt er est ed i n l ook i ng

at how schol ar s have seen t hese t ext s : how have t hey seen t he

genr e, t he mai n t heme( s) , t he i deol ogy, t he f unct i on, and t he

pur pose of t hese t ext s . Thi s i s i mpor t ant because ul t i mat el y t he

i nt er t ext ual const r uct i on of t he i deal r ul er has i mpl i cat i ons f or

how we under st and t he nat ur e and pur pose of t hese t ext s; as

Cul l er s t at es ( above) , an i mpor t ant use f or i nt er t ext ual i t y i s

t he st udy of genr e. I wi l l begi n wi t h t he Cyr opaedi a, as t her e

i s l ess cont ent i on over i t s pur pose, and t hen I wi l l t ur n t o

schol ar shi p on Chr oni c l es.

Genr e

The i ssue of genr e i s compl i cat ed, because i t i s so

nebul ous a t er m. The i dea of genr e i s as ol d as t hi nk i ng about

l i t er at ur e: Ar i s t ot l e began t he Poet i cs by s t at i ng t hat he want ed

t o consi der poet r y ( poi ) i n gener al and i t s genr es ( ei dos)

( 47a1) . Her e, I wi l l be br i ef l y set t i ng out t he Bakht i ni an

under st andi ng of genr e t hat I wi l l be assumi ng i n my i nt er t ext ual

s t udy. I n The Pr obl ems of Dost oevsky ’ s Poet i cs, Bakht i n

descr i bes l i t er ar y genr e as cont ai ni ng “ t he most s t abl e,

‘ et er nal ’ t endenci es i n l i t er at ur e’ s devel opment [ …] , ” yet a

genr e i s “ r ebor n and r enewed at ever y new st age i n t he

devel opment of l i t er at ur e and i n ever y i ndi v i dual wor k of a gi ven

genr e” ( 106) . I n “ The Pr obl em of Speech Genr es, ” wher e he

di scusses t he speech genr es of ut t er ances ( r angi ng f r om t he

sent ence t o t he f ul l - l engt h t ext ) , he not es t hat speech genr es

61

ar e het er ogeneous i n t he ext r eme, and t hat t hei r di ver si t y i s

l i nked t o t he di ver s i t y of t he human exper i ence ( 60- 61) . Thus,

genr e can be seen as an ever - shi f t i ng ar r ay of speech t ypes.

Bakht i n di vi des speech genr es i nt o pr i mar y ( si mpl e) and secondar y

( compl ex) speech genr es; t he compl ex speech genr es such as novel s

absor b pr i mar y speech genr es such as l et t er s ( 61- 62) . However ,

most i mpor t ant f or our pr oj ect i s Bakht i n’ s asser t i on t hat “ st yl e

i s i nsepar abl y r el at ed t o t he ut t er ance and t o t ypi cal f or ms of

ut t er ances [ …] ” ( 63) : t her e i s an “ or gani c , i nsepar abl e l i nk

bet ween st yl e and genr e [ …] each spher e has and appl i es i t s own

genr es t hat cor r espond t o i t s own speci f i c condi t i ons” ( 64) . He

al so s t at es,

Wher e t her e i s s t y l e t her e i s genr e. The t r ansf er of

s t yl e f r om one genr e t o anot her not onl y al t er s t he

way a st yl e sounds, under condi t i ons of a genr e

unnat ur al t o i t , but al so vi ol at es or r enews t he gi ven

genr e. ( 66)

Fi nal l y, Bakht i n al so suggest s t hat an i ndi v i dual ’ s speech i s

adapt ed f or a speci f i c genr e, i t t akes t he f or m of t he genr e; and

i f speech genr es di d not exi st , communi cat i on woul d be al most

i mpossi bl e ( 78- 79) . We r el y on st yl i st i c mar ker s i n or der t o

det er mi ne genr e, whi ch makes communi cat i on possi bl e. Genr e i s

t hus l i nked t o f or m, as wel l as t heme. I wi l l be us i ng t hi s

poi nt i n or der t o come t o concl usi ons about t he genr e of

Chr oni cl es.

62

Now I wi l l br i ef l y def i ne t he genr es of hi st or i ogr aphy,

f i ct i on and ( pol i t i cal ) phi l osophy, as I wi l l be usi ng t he t er ms

i n t he next sect i ons. As I ment i oned above, Ar i st ot l e i n t he

Poet i cs separ at ed out hi st or y f r om poet r y as a genr e. He t hen

def i ned hi st or y as t he genr e t hat “ r el at es act ual event s, ” and

poet r y as t he genr e t hat r el at es “ t he ki nd of event s t hat mi ght

occur . ” He went on t o suggest t hat poet r y i s “ mor e phi l osophi cal

and mor e el evat ed t han hi st or y [ …] ” ( 51a36- 51b8) . I n t he cont ext

of bi bl i cal l i t er at ur e, Mar c Zvi Br et t l er has def i ned hi st or y as

“ a nar r at i ve t hat pr esent s a past ” ( 12) and has opposed i t t o

i deol ogy, whi ch he def i nes as a t ype of set s of bel i ef s ( 14) . He

does not use t he t er m l i t er at ur e; i nst ead, he uses i deol ogy,

suggest i ng t hat j ust because a t ext has l i t er ar y f eat ur es t hat

does not mean i t i s l i t er at ur e ( 17) . Bot h Ar i st ot l e and

Br et t l er , t her ef or e, pl ace hi s t or y or hi st or i ogr aphy on one si de,

and t he t hi ngs t hat “ mi ght occur ” on t he ot her .

G. Bower sock does not expl i c i t l y def i ne t he t er ms “ f i c t i on”

and “ hi s t or y” i n hi s Fi c t i on as Hi st or y , but i mpl i es t hat hi st or y

i s what r eal l y happened and f i ct i on i s what di d not . However , he

does go on t o show how, l at er i n t he cl ass i cal per i od, Roman

aut hor s such as Luci an “ t r i e[ d] t o pul l down t he di s t i nct i on

bet ween f i ct i on t hat we accept as f i c t i on and f i ct i on t hat i s

pr esent ed as a r ecor d of r eal event s” ( 5- 6) . Al t hough Her odot us

had descr i bed hi s wor k as “ r esear ches, ” by t he f i r st cent ur y BCE,

t he t er m hi s t or i a meant pl ot , “ t he r ecei ved account of t he past

63

t hat r eached back i nt o myt hi cal t i mes wi t hout a br eak” ( 7- 8) .

Cr eat i ng f i c t i on t hr ough t he r ewr i t i ng of hi st or y ( t he r euse of

pl ot as Ar i s t ot l e descr i bed such r euse) was i mpor t ant i n anc i ent

t i mes ( 12) . Mei r St er nber g descr i bes t he usual opposi t i on

bet ween hi st or y and f i ct i on, but t hen descr i bes bot h hi s t or y-

wr i t i ng and f i ct i on- wr i t i ng as di scour ses: one c l ai ms t o be

f act ual and t he ot her cl ai ms t he “ f r eedom of i nvent i on” ( 25) . He

al so c l ai ms t hat one cannot t el l t he di f f er ence bet ween f i ct i on

and hi st or y by f or mal char act er i st i cs al one; t hey can be

di st i ngui shed onl y by t hei r pur pose ( 30) . Thi s i s cont r ar y t o

Bakht i n’ s cl ai m, whi ch I di scussed above, t hat ever y genr e has

i t s own st yl e.

I n t hi s di sser t at i on, I wi l l be us i ng t he gener i c l abel s of

“ hi s t or i ogr aphy, ” “ f i c t i on, ” and “ phi l osophy. ” Bear i ng i n mi nd

t he di scussi on above, I def i ne “ hi st or i ogr aphy” as a nar r at i ve

about t he past t hat makes a t r ut h cl ai m about t he past i t

r ecount s; “ f i c t i on” as a nar r at i ve t hat makes no t r ut h c l ai m

about i t s st or y; and “ phi l osophy” as a pr ose r ender i ng whi ch

makes a t r ut h cl ai m about i t s i deol ogy. Phi l osophy, t her ef or e,

can be i n nar r at i ve f or m r ecount i ng t he past , l i ke

hi st or i ogr aphy, i t can al so make no t r ut h cl ai m about t he past

t hat i t r ecount s, l i ke f i c t i on. However , i t does make a t r ut h

c l ai m about i t s under l yi ng message. As we wi l l see bel ow, t her e

i s a good deal of debat e as t o t he genr e of bot h t he Cyr opaedi a

and Chr oni cl es. I woul d suggest t hat al t hough f or us i t i s

64

uncl ear as t o t he genr e of t hese wor ks, f or t he anci ent s i t may

have been per f ect l y cl ear ( c f . Bakht i n, “ Speech Genr es” 98) .

Bef or e I begi n t o amass my evi dence i n Chapt er s Thr ee t hr ough

Fi ve, I wi l l br i ef l y out l i ne t he var i ous ways schol ar s have

pl aced t hese t wo t ext s i nt o a gener i c cat egor y.

The Cyr opaedi a

The l i f e of Xenophon and t he cont ext f or hi s wor k i s

r easonabl y wel l known, as I poi nt ed out i n t he I nt r oduct i on t o

t hi s di sser t at i on. He l i ved dur i ng a t i me of consi der abl e

pol i t i cal conf us i on and war among t he Gr eek ci t y- st at es, and

dur i ng a t i me of t he f l ower i ng of phi l osophy. 18 Xenophon’ s

wr i t i ngs as a whol e can be di v i ded i nt o t wo gener al cat egor i es:

hi st or i ogr aphy and phi l osophy. Cer t ai nl y he i s bet t er known as a

hi st or i an t oday, but i n ant i qui t y he was mor e known f or hi s

phi l osophi cal wor ks, and i n ant i qui t y and dur i ng t he Renai ssance

hi s most i nf l uent i al wor k was t he Cyr opaedi a ( Luce 99) . Whet her

we shoul d vi ew t he Cyr opaedi a as hi s t or i ogr aphy or phi l osophy i s

not much debat ed: schol ar s gener al l y agr ee t hat i t i s not a wor k

of hi s t or i ogr aphy. 19 I n di scuss i ng what he t er ms “ hi s t or y ’ s

compet i t or s, ” Char l es For nar a i ncl udes t he Cyr opaedi a under t he

genr e of “ phi l osophi cal hi st or y” or “ ut opi an hi s t or y . ” He

descr i bes t he phi l osophi cal / ut opi an hi st or y as havi ng

“ scr upul ousl y mai nt ai ned t he f i c t i on of hi st or i c i t y, however

gr eat i t s depar t ur e f r om i t ” ( 175) . 20 He suggest s t hat Xenophon

was abl e t o use a f or ei gn set t i ng i n a hi s t or i cal past i n or der

65

t o expr ess hi s own t heor et i cal v i ews. The “ hi st or i cal

char act er s ser ved as t he mout hpi ece of t he phi l osopher ’ s

opi ni ons, ” opi ni ons whi ch wer e gi ven t he veneer of hi s t or i ci t y or

r eal i t y ( 176) . Phi l i p St adt er poi nt s out t hat Xenophon sai d t hat

he had made “ i nqui r i es, ” j ust as an anci ent hi st or i an woul d

c l ai m. I t i s onl y when t he ser i es of l ong di al ogues begi n near

t he end of Book 1 t hat t he r eader r eal i zes t hat t hi s i s not a

wor k of hi st or i ogr aphy, even t hough Xenophon di d pr esent some

f act ual hi st or i cal mat er i al ( 461- 63) . Momi gl i ano poi nt s out t hat

Xenophon was not t r y i ng t o wr i t e t he hi s t or y of Cyr us, but r at her

pr esent hi s por t r ai t of t he i deal r ul er ( Al i en 134) . Pi er r e

Car l i er suggest s t hat Xenophon woul d have been abl e t o choose

f r om var i ous ver si ons of t he Cyr us- l egends t hat wer e i n

c i r cul at i on i n or der t o make hi s poi nt s ( 133) . Gener al l y t oday,

t hen, t her e ar e t hr ee ways of vi ewi ng t he Cyr opaedi a: as a novel

( f i c t i on) , as a bi ogr aphy ( a sub- genr e of hi st or i ogr aphy) , or as

pol i t i cal phi l osophy.

Some schol ar s have t r i ed t o see t he Cyr opaedi a as a novel ,

t he f i r s t novel of i t s k i nd, as I di scussed above when r ef er r i ng

t o Bakht i n. Besi des Bakht i n, Wi l l i am Hi ggi ns al so di scusses t he

Cyr opaedi a as a novel , suggest i ng t hat i n t hi s wor k “ t he i deal

and t he hi st or i cal coul d mer ge t o cr eat e t he f i r st novel [ …]

Hi st or y t ur ned t o f i ct i on coul d per mi t t he el uci dat i on of i deas

concer ni ng t he t ypi cal and t he t i mel ess” ( 44) . He l at er suggest s

t hat t he Cyr opaedi a i s mor e of a pr ose epi c i n whi ch Cyr us i s t he

66

her o ( 53) , and al so asser t s t hat t her e i s l i t t l e of phi l osophy

and phi l osopher s i n t he wor k ( 55) . Al exandr u Ci zek al so

consi der s t he Cyr opaedi a a novel , cal l i ng i t “ a whol l y or i gi nal

f i ct i on” and “ t he f i r s t Bi l dungsr oman i n wor l d l i t er at ur e f r eel y

gover ned by t he f or mat i ve wi l l of t he aut hor ” ( 548) . James Tat um

has been t he most el oquent aut hor on t he subj ect of t he

Cyr opaedi a as novel , char act er i z i ng i t as “ bot h i deal i st i c and

r omant i c , ” and a pr ecur sor t o t he Gr eek r omance; but he al so

r emi nds us t hat i t shoul d be r ead as “ pol i t i cal educat i on”

( “ Educat i on” 16) . The novel i s t i c f eat ur es of t he Cyr opaedi a ar e

especi al l y evi dent i n t he on- goi ng s t or y of Pant hea and

Abr adat as, whi ch does seem t o ant i ci pat e some of t he same

concer ns of t he l at er Gr eek novel s but i s much mor e mor al i st i c

( 19- 20) . As an i deol ogi cal novel , t he Cyr opaedi a pr esent s i t s

cent r al message r epeat edl y so t hat i t s l esson i s conveyed: i t i s

aut hor i t ar i an f i ct i on, wher e Xenophon “ i nt er t wi ned t he pol i t i cal

and t he f i ct i onal i n a s i ngl e t ext ” ( 25- 27) . Tat um poi nt s out

t hat Ci cer o pr ai sed t he Cyr opaedi a pr eci sel y because i t was

f i ct i on wi t h a pol i t i cal pur pose ( JT 9) .

Tat um’ s ar t i cl e l eads us t o a di scuss i on of what many

schol ar s consi der t he Cyr opaedi a t o be, a wor k of pol i t i cal

phi l osophy ( pol i t ei a- l i t er at ur e) i n t he f or m of a bi ogr aphy.

Momi gl i ano suggest s t hat t he Cyr opaedi a i s t he f i r st and most

accompl i shed exampl e of t he Gr eek bi ogr aphy, but i t was not ( and

never cl ai med t o be) t he t r ue account of t he l i f e of a r eal

67

per son. Thi s bi ogr aphy whi ch was no bi ogr aphy used a mi xt ur e

of f act and f i ct i on i n or der t o communi cat e i t s phi l osophi c

message. Momi gl i ano al so poi nt s out t hat t he bor der bet ween

f i ct i on and r eal i t y was mor e bl ur r ed i n t he anci ent bi ogr aphy

t han i t was i n anc i ent hi s t or i ogr aphy ( Devel opment 55- 56) . J. R

Mor gan poi nt s out t hat t he anci ent novel i s t s of t en const r uct ed

t hei r t ext s as i f t hey wer e hi st or i es ( we mi ght cal l t hem

hi st or i cal novel s) ( 206) .

Bodi l Due has i ndi cat ed t hat t he Cyr opaedi a i s bot h i n f or m

( di scuss i ng t he “ educat i on” of Cyr us) and i n l engt h ( ver y l ong)

ver y di f f er ent f r om ot her exampl es of t he genr e of pol i t i cal

phi l osophy, especi al l y i f we compar e i t t o Xenophon’ s

Const i t ut i on of t he Lacedaemoni ans, whi ch i s much shor t er ( BD

14) . She t hus consi der s t he wor k t o be devot ed t o di scuss i ng t he

best way of gover ni ng, but put wi t hi n t he f or m of a bi ogr aphy or

f i ct i onal bi ogr aphy of a hi s t or i cal f i gur e. Thi s f i gur e i s t he

subj ect of t he book, maki ng t he book a pol i t i cal wor k wi t h bot h

novel i st i c and bi ogr aphi cal t endenci es ( BD 25- 26) . I n her l at er

ar t i cl e, Due consi der s t he wor k t o be a novel , pl ai n and s i mpl e:

mor e speci f i cal l y, a hi s t or i cal novel or an educat i onal novel ;

she r ej ect s i t s cl assi f i cat i on as ei t her a bi ogr aphy or as a

hi st or y ( “ Xenophon” 588) . Jean Lucci oni al so consi der s t he

Cyr opaedi a as a hi st or i cal novel , bet ween hi st or y and novel ( 213;

cf . Luce 99) .

68

Debor ah Ger a consi der s t he Cyr opaedi a t o be a t ype of

bi ogr aphy desi gned t o be a vehi c l e f or pr esent i ng Xenophon’ s own

concer ns. Thus Xenophon used t he f or m of a bi ogr aphy, whi ch had

al r eady devel oped i nt o a genr e, but pr esent ed t he message of

pol i t i cal phi l osophy. He want ed hi s wor k t o be cl assi f i ed wi t hi n

t he genr e of pol i t ei a- l i t er at ur e; he had al r eady wr i t t en ot her

wor ks whi ch cl ear l y f i t wi t hi n t hat genr e, i nc l udi ng t he

Const i t ut i on of t he Lacedaemoni ans and t he Hi er o. Ther e ar e

i ndi cat i ons t hat Xenophon want ed t he Cyr opaedi a t o be seen as a

wor k compar abl e t o Pl at o’ s Republ i c, and i n ant i qui t y many

aut hor s saw Pl at o and Xenophon as havi ng been i n compet i t i on

( t hough Ger a ar gued t hat t hey pr obabl y wer e not ) . Ger a’ s

assessment of t he Cyr opaedi a’ s genr e i s t hus not much di f f er ent

f r om Due’ s ; a bi ogr aphy t hat hi ghl i ght s t he concer ns of pol i t i cal

phi l osophy ( 1- 13) .

St adt er cal l s t he Cyr opaedi a a “ di dact i c nar r at i ve, ” wher e

Xenophon’ s use of t i me and space, char act er , and i deal i zat i on

combi ne t o f or m a nar r at i ve about Cyr us much cl oser t o Pl at o’ s

depi ct i on of Socr at es t han t o a hi st or i cal f i gur e. He cal l s

Cyr us a par adi gm of t he i deal r ul er ( 490- 91) . Thus, al t hough he

does not use t he t er ms phi l osophy or pol i t ei a- l i t er at ur e, by

i mpl i cat i on he suggest s t hat pol i t i cal phi l osophy i s t he nat ur e

and f unct i on of t he Cyr opaedi a. St even Hi r sch al so sees t he

pur pose of t he Cyr opaedi a as bei ng a di dact i c nar r at i ve on

educat i on, admi ni s t r at i on and mi l i t ar y af f ai r s ( “ 1001” 71) . John

69

Di l l er y sees t he i dea of t he i deal communi t y t o be s t r ong i n

bot h t he Anabasi s and t he Hel l eni ca, due per haps t o t he br eakdown

of or gani zed soc i et y i n Gr eece i n t he f our t h cent ur y ( 43- 44) .

Per haps he coul d have expanded hi s wor k t o l ook at t he Cyr opaedi a

as wel l . I f i nd i t i nt er est i ng t hat gener al l y c l ass i c i s t s have

t ended t o cl assi f y t he Cyr opaedi a as a novel or bi ogr aphy, and

t ended t o r esi st t he c l ass i f i cat i on as phi l osophy, whi l e

pol i t i cal phi l osopher s have t ended t o cl assi f y t he Cyr opaedi a as

a wor k of phi l osophy, as I wi l l show bel ow. 21

When we t ur n t o t he pol i t i cal phi l osopher s, John Ray

suggest s t hat Xenophon hi msel f embodi ed t he compl et e man as

suggest ed by Xenophon’ s wor ks: bot h pol i t i cal ( as i n t he

Anabasi s) , and phi l osophi cal ( as i n t he Memor abi l i a) ( 241) . He

sees t he Cyr opaedi a as bei ng pr i mar i l y about i t s s t at ed mai n

pr obl em: how t o r ul e ( 225) , r at her t han bei ng a novel or

bi ogr aphy ( t hese t er ms do not even come up dur i ng hi s

di scussi on) . Lesl i e Rubi n di scusses t he Pant hea epi sodes not as

bei ng novel i st i c ( as so many c l ass i c i st s see t hem) , but r at her as

epi sodes whi ch hel p t o i l l umi nat e Xenophon’ s pol i t i cal

phi l osophy. The onl y phi l osophi cal di al ogues i n t he Cyr opaedi a

ar e t he di al ogues about l ove; Rubi n suggest s t hat t hese

di al ogues, al t hough phi l osophi cal i n nat ur e, ar e per t i nent f or

Xenophon’ s over al l pol i t i cal phi l osophy ( 391) . Lucc i oni poi nt s

out t hat Xenophon onl y i nc l uded i nf or mat i on r el evant t o hi s

t heor i es about r ul i ng ( 213- 14) . W. R. Newel l suggest s t hat t he

70

Cyr opaedi a “ can be r egar ded as t he cent er pi ece of Xenophon’ s

pol i t i cal wr i t i ngs” ( 891) .

My own hypot hesi s about t he genr e of t he Cyr opaedi a i s t hat

i t i s a wor k of pol i t i cal phi l osophy, whi ch means t hat i t can

i ncl ude t he f eat ur es of bi ogr aphy, hi st or i ogr aphy, and novel ( as

I def i ned t he genr es i n t he pr ev i ous sect i on) . I t i s ut opi an,

and pr esent s a wor l d t hat never ex i s t ed. I t i s a handbook, whi ch

pr esent s a summar y of Xenophon’ s t hought on ever yt hi ng f r om

char i ot t act i cs t o t he ar t of r ul i ng. Because i t i s set i n a

t i me and pl ace f ar r emoved f r om i t s aut hor , i t i s per haps easi er

t o see i t s pur pose. We wi l l see i n Chapt er Two how t he

i nt er t ext ual const r uct i on of Cyr us l eads us t o a descr i pt i on of

t he genr e of t he Cyr opaedi a.

Chr oni cl es

Fi r s t , I woul d l i ke t o under t ake a br i ef excur sus on t he

cont ext of t he pr oduct i on of Chr oni c l es. Unl i ke t he case of

Xenophon, si nce t he aut hor of Chr oni c l es i s anonymous, i t i s

di f f i cul t f or us t o pi n down t he l i t er ar y hi st or y of t he t ext ’ s

pr oduct i on. Her e, I wi l l gi ve a br i ef di scuss i on of t he possi bl e

cont ext f or t he pr oduct i on of Chr oni c l es i n or der t hat my

di scussi on of genr e and pur pose at t he end of t hi s sect i on mi ght

have some cont ext as wel l . We can pl ace Chr oni c l es r oughl y

wi t hi n t he per i od of Per si an r ul e of t he Near East ( 539- 333 BCE) ,

pr obabl y t owar ds t he end of t hat per i od of r ul e. Dur i ng t hi s

per i od, t he Per s i an admi ni st r at i ve di st r i c t of Yehud was smal l ,

71

poor , and pr i mar i l y composed of Jer usal em and i t s sur r oundi ng

hi nt er l ands. Ther e woul d have been an ext r emel y smal l per cent age

of t he popul at i on who had ei t her t he abi l i t y or l ei sur e t o cr eat e

wor ks of l i t er at ur e. The Chr oni cl er may have been a Templ e

scr i be ( t he usual vi ew) , or poss i bl y may have been a t eacher ( not

unl i ke t he f i gur e of t he sage i n bi bl i cal wi sdom l i t er at ur e) .

Yehud dur i ng t hi s per i od was r el at i vel y out - of - t he- way and

uni mpor t ant , r esour ce- poor , peopl e- poor . 22 That any l i t er at ur e at

al l was cr eat ed may seem mi r acul ous; but t he t ype of l i t er at ur e

t hat I wi l l ar gue t hat Chr oni c l es i s woul d be especi al l y

i mpor t ant f or a peopl e t r y i ng t o f or m some k i nd of i dent i t y i n

t hi s cont ext ( cf . Davi es 108- 115) .

Above, I di scussed t he r at i onal e f or seei ng Chr oni cl es as a

sor t of novel , whi ch al l ows us t o use a di al ogi c met hod of

r eadi ng t he t ext . Thi s i s not t he usual way t hat schol ar s see

t hi s t ext . M. P. Gr aham and St even McKenzi e have edi t ed t wo

books, and ar e i n t he pr ocess of col l ect i ng a t hi r d, ent i t l ed The

Chr oni cl er as Hi st or i an, The Chr oni c l er as Aut hor , and The

Chr oni cl er as Theol ogi an. 23 These t hr ee t i t l es seem t o me t o

descr i be qui t e c l ear l y t he t hr ee cat egor i es i nt o whi ch schol ar l y

under st andi ng of t he nat ur e and pur pose of Chr oni c l es may be

gr ouped. I wi l l begi n by di scussi ng how Chr oni c l es i s under st ood

as hi s t or y , t hen I wi l l t ur n t o i t s under st andi ng as t heol ogy,

and f i nal l y I wi l l t ur n t o i t s under st andi ng as l i t er at ur e, i . e. ,

f i ct i on.

72

I t i s common t o under st and Chr oni c l es as bei ng

hi st or i ogr aphy: t hese books r ecount t he past , use sour ce

ci t at i ons, di v i de t i me i nt o er as or r ei gns, and so on. The ver y

t i t l e of t he books i n Hebr ew, “ Annal s , ” i mpl i es a hi st or i cal

pur pose, al t hough we must r emember t hat t i t l es i n anci ent t i mes

wer e of t en at t ached not by t he aut hor but by l at er scr i bes or

l i br ar i ans. The pl acement of t he books i n t he Chr i st i an canon,

among t he ot her “ hi st or i cal ” books ( r at her t han among t he

“ Wr i t i ngs” as i n t he Jewi sh canon) , al so cont r i but es t o t he

not i on of Chr oni cl es as hi st or i ogr aphy. Per haps t he c l ear est

expr essi on of t he i dea of Chr oni cl es as hi st or i ogr aphy has come

f r om Japhet ,

A consi der at i on of t he wor k’ s r el evant f eat ur es, such

as ai m, pl an, f or m, and met hod, must l ead t o t he

concl usi on t hat Chr oni cl es i s a hi st or y, an

i di osyncr at i c expr essi on of bi bl i cal hi s t or i ogr aphy.

I t i s a pr esent at i on of consequent event s, f ocussed on

t he f or t unes of a col l ect i ve body, I sr ael , al ong a

per i od of t i me wi t hi n a def i ned chr onol ogi cal and

t er r i t or i al set t i ng. The event s do not const i t ut e an

i nci dent al col l ect i on of epi sodes but ar e bot h

sel ect ed and st r uct ur ed. They ar e r epr esent ed i n a

r at i onal sequence, gover ned by acknowl edged and

expl i c i t l y f or mul at ed pr i nci pl es of cause and ef f ect ,

73

and ar e j udged by st r i ngent cr i t er i a of hi st or i cal

pr obabi l i t y. 24 ( SJ 32)

She t hen goes on t o di st i ngui sh bet ween t he ai ms and met hods of

anci ent ( by whi ch she means bi bl i cal ) and moder n hi st or i ans ( SJ

32- 34) . For Japhet , t he ai m of t he Chr oni cl er ’ s hi s t or y was t o

r ewr i t e I sr ael ’ s hi s t or y i n or der t o expl ai n t he past i n t er ms

r el evant t o t he pr esent and t o l egi t i mat e cont empor ar y pr act i ces

by connect i ng t hem t o an aut hor i t at i ve past ( SJ 49) . She al so

poi nt s out t he i mpor t ance of t he so- cal l ed “ Levi t i cal Ser mons” i n

Chr oni cl es – t hese speeches pl ay t he same r ol e i n Chr oni cl es as

or at i ons i n ot her anci ent hi st or i ogr aphy ( “ Rel at i onshi p” 307) .

Kennet h Hogl und has wr i t t en an excel l ent essay t hat

cont i nues Japhet ’ s ar gument s about anci ent hi s t or i ogr aphy i n a

mor e nuanced way. He l ooks not onl y at bi bl i cal model s f or

hi st or i ogr aphy, but at ot her anc i ent model s as wel l . He poi nt s

out t hat geneal ogi es pl ayed an i mpor t ant r ol e i n t he

hi st or i ogr aphy of t he Hel l eni s t i c wor l d ( 22) . He not es t hat t he

r ol e of t he pr ophet i n Chr oni c l es i s par al l el ed i n t he “ wi se

counsel or ” scenes i n Her odot us ( 24) . Li kewi se, t he use of “ st ock

number s” f or t r oops or peopl e f i nds a par al l el i n Hel l eni s t i c

hi st or i ogr aphy, as does t he use of sour ce ci t at i ons ( 27- 28) . He

concl udes t hat s i nce many of t hese f eat ur es of Chr oni c l es ar e

absent f r om t he Deut er onomi c Hi s t or y , t he Chr oni cl er was wor ki ng

wi t h a di f f er ent concept i on of hi s t or i ogr aphy, one c l oser t o t he

concept of hi s t or i ogr aphy f ound i n t he Hel l eni st i c wor l d, and

74

t hat t he Chr oni c l er was wor k i ng wel l wi t hi n t he accept ed

pr act i ces of t he anci ent wor l d ( 29) .

Rodney Duke sees t hr ee f unct i ons behi nd bi bl i cal hi s t or i cal

nar r at i ves: 1) t o pr eser ve t he t r adi t i ons and i dent i t y of I sr ael ;

2) t o r espond t o t he needs of an audi ence; and 3) t o pr esent a

wor l d- vi ew ( “ Model ” 66) . He i s i nt er est ed i n a model of anal ysi s

t hat woul d el uci dat e t hi s wor l dv i ew, a model t hat he devel ops

f r om t he wor k of Hayden Whi t e. Thus, f or Duke, t he sel ect i on of

subj ect mat t er by t he hi st or i an r eveal s t he hi st or i an’ s val ues:

i n t he case of Chr oni c l es, t he pr i mar y event s ar e t hose deal i ng

wi t h t he est abl i shment of t he Davi di c monar chy, t he cul t , pr oper

wor shi p, and I sr ael ’ s success. The r el at i onshi ps bet ween past

event s communi cat e t he hi s t or i an’ s r eal i t y : i n Chr oni c l es, Yhwh

i s t he pr i mar y agent of hi st or y, and seeki ng or f or sak i ng Yhwh

r esul t s i n di v i ne bl essi ng or cur se ( r espect i vel y) . The event s

of t he pl ot communi cat e t he hi st or i an’ s t el eol ogy: i n Chr oni cl es,

i t i s t he pr omi se of r est or at i on i n t he l and of I sr ael . These

al l combi ne t o communi cat e an i deol ogy about pr oper human act i on:

i n Chr oni c l es, by r epr esent i ng t he audi ence’ s past , t he hi st or i an

cal l ed f or a pr oper r el at i onshi p wi t h Yhwh and hope of hi s

bl essi ng ( 67- 76) . El sewher e, Duke uses Ar i s t ot el i an r het or i c t o

anal yze how t he Chr oni cl er achi eved hi s pur pose: t he Chr oni c l er

used exampl es and maxi ms, bol s t er ed by speeches of aut hor i t at i ve

char act er s i n or der t o dr i ve home hi s poi nt : t hat ev i l k i ngs

75

r ecei ve r et r i but i on and i deal ki ngs bl essi ng ( Per suasi ve 150-

51) . 25

Si mon de Vr i es poi nt s out t he di f f er ences bet ween t he

Chr oni cl er ’ s hi s t or y and t he Deut er onomi c hi st or y of whi ch

Samuel - Ki ngs i s t he l ast hal f : t he Deut er onomi c hi st or y i s t he

hi st or y of I sr ael , whi l e t he Chr oni c l er ’ s hi st or y i s t he hi s t or y

of God – i t i s t he hi s t or y of God’ s congr egat i on ( SJV 18) . De

Vr i es sees Chr oni c l es as embodyi ng a cyc l i cal r at her t han a

l i near v i ew of hi s t or y : a ser i es of “ sabbat hs” f or t he l and,

l eadi ng up t o t he l ongest “ sabbat h” of t hem al l , t he exi l e ( SJV

18- 19) .

Br et t l er uses Chr oni cl es as hi s model when descr i bi ng t he

genr e of bi bl i cal hi st or y, pr ef er r i ng Chr oni cl es f or t hi s pur pose

t o t he Deut er onomi c hi st or y used by ot her schol ar s, such as Van

Set er s i n I n Sear ch of Hi s t or y . He ar gues t hat t he Chr oni cl er

wr ot e hi s wor k as hi st or i ogr aphy, and t hat hi s manner of

pr esent i ng t he hi s t or y of I sr ael ( hi s wor l dv i ew, hi s use of

sour ce c i t at i ons) al l owed hi s hi st or y t o be accept ed. He al so

ar gues t hat t he Chr oni cl er r el i ed on t hi s audi ence’ s knowl edge of

Samuel - Ki ngs ( Sear ch 20- 23) . One of t he Chr oni c l er ’ s mai n t ool s

was t ypol ogi es and pat t er ns: t hus Davi d’ s r emoval of t he Ar k i n 1

Chr on. 15 i s pat t er ned af t er a s i mi l ar event under t aken by

Sol omon i n 1 Ki ngs 8; Hezeki ah i s pat t er ned af t er Sol omon;

Davi d’ s pur chase of t he Templ e s i t e i n 1 Chr on. 21 i s pat t er ned

af t er Abr aham’ s pur chase of t he Cave of Machpel ah i n Gen. 23;

76

Sol omon’ s accessi on i s pat t er ned af t er Joshua’ s successi on t o

Moses ( based on Wi l l i amson, “ Accessi on” ) ; and so on ( 34- 37) . For

Br et t l er , t he Chr oni cl er “ was so sur e of cer t ai n pol i t i cal and

r el i gi ous i deol ogi es t hat he r ewr ot e t he accept ed ver s i on of

hi st or y t o conf or m t o ( and t o conf i r m) what he t r ul y bel i eved

happened” ( 47) . 26

The i ssue of Chr oni c l es’ hi s t or i cal r el i abi l i t y i s one t hat

f ol l ows f r om seei ng Chr oni cl es as hi s t or i ogr aphy. I saac Kal i mi

makes a good poi nt when he says t hat t he i ssue of Chr oni cl es ’

r el i abi l i t y as hi s t or y shoul d not over shadow how we eval uat e i t s

hi st or i ogr aphi c nat ur e – he expl i c i t l y compar es Chr oni cl es t o

Her odot us on t hi s poi nt ( “ Hi st or i an” 85) . 27 However , he does

cl ai m t hat Chr oni c l es cannot be pr oper l y under st ood wi t hout

knowi ng Samuel - Ki ngs ( 87) , a c l ai m whi ch I di sput e, and whi ch I

wi l l at t empt t o di spr ove i n Chapt er s Thr ee t hr ough Fi ve.

Cont r ar y t o bi bl i cal schol ar s ear l i er i n t he cent ur y, i t i s now

commonl y accept ed t hat Chr oni c l es can be used as a hi s t or i cal

sour ce i n onl y a ver y l i mi t ed way, once we f act or i n

ar chaeol ogi cal and ext r a- bi bl i cal t ext ual mat er i al . 28

I wi l l t ur n next t o a di scussi on of Chr oni cl es as a

t heol ogi cal wor k. Ther e ar e t wo basi c appr oaches her e, whi ch

of t en over l ap: 1) Chr oni cl es was wr i t t en as a wor k of t heol ogy,

wi t h al most excl us i vel y t heol ogi cal ai ms, not hi st or i cal ones; 2)

Chr oni cl es was wr i t t en as a mi dr ash or pr ot o- mi dr ash on Samuel -

Ki ngs, i . e. , as an exeget i cal exer ci se. Br et t l er has poi nt ed out

77

t he per vasi veness of t he t heol ogi cal appr oaches t o Chr oni c l es

i n r ecent year s ( 23) . Of t he r ecent comment ar i es, onl y Japhet ’ s

( SJ) r eal l y t r eat s Chr oni c l es as hi s t or i ogr aphy; t he r est

gener al l y l ook t o t he t heol ogy of Chr oni cl es.

Al t hough I i dent i f i ed Japhet as a schol ar mor e concer ned

wi t h Chr oni c l es as hi s t or i ogr aphy, her wor k on t he i deol ogy of

Chr oni cl es has def i ni t e t heol ogi cal over t ones. Her i deas on t he

Chr oni cl er ’ s t heol ogy have been ver y i nf l uent i al , per haps mor e so

s i nce The I deol ogy of t he Book of Chr oni cl es and i t s Pl ace i n

Bi bl i cal Thought was t r ans l at ed i nt o Engl i sh. She doubt s t hat

t her e i s one over r i di ng t heol ogy of Chr oni cl es,

Chr oni cl es i s not a mani f est o devot ed t o a speci f i c

pol i t i cal movement but a mor e gener al and

compr ehensi ve t heol ogi cal st ock- t aki ng, st r i vi ng t o

achi eve a new r el i gi ous bal ance i n t he f ace of a

changi ng wor l d. ( SJ 43- 44)

Rat her , var i ous t heol ogi cal t hemes ar e expr essed t hr ough t he

wor k i ng out of hi s t or y . She poi nt s out t hat f or t he Chr oni c l er ,

I sr ael ’ s covenant wi t h Yhwh di d not have a basi s i n hi st or y, but

was r at her a uni ver sal const ant . The pr i mar y at t r i but e of God’ s

r ul e was t he concept of j ust i ce: God’ s absol ut e j ust r ul e was not

a pr omi se f or t he f ut ur e but a hi s t or i cal f act . Al t hough t he

Templ e and pr oper wor shi p wer e i mpor t ant , t he i ndi vi dual

I sr ael i t e al so had t o be r i ght eous i n conduct and at t i t ude ( SJ

44- 45) .

78

Wi l l i am Johnst one has pr oduced a comment ar y and sever al

ar t i cl es devot ed t o del i neat i ng t he t heol ogy of Chr oni cl es. He

has di sput ed t hat Chr oni cl es i s hi st or i ogr aphy,

The Chr oni cl er i s not now i nt er est ed i n t he

hi st or i an’ s di scr i mi nat i ons of t i me and epoch; r at her ,

hi s pur pose i s t o gat her t oget her i n a gl obal manner

t he f ul ness of I sr ael past and pr esent i n t i mel ess

cont empor anei t y. He i s concer ned t o por t r ay an i deal

I sr ael i n al l - i ncl us i ve t er ms, not t o r econst r uct t he

act ual popul at i on at some poi nt i n t i me. ( “ Gui l t ” 115-

116)

Over al l , he sees Chr oni c l es as a t heol ogi cal essay concer ned wi t h

t he r el at i onshi p bet ween God and humani t y, and t he pur pose of

I sr ael wi t hi n t hat r el at i onshi p. For hi m, 1 Chr on. 1- 2 Chr on. 9

depi ct s I sr ael ’ s at t empt t o accompl i sh t he i deal f or m of l i f e

wi t h God, and 2 Chr on. 10- 36 depi c t s t he f ai l ur e t o do so ( WJ 1:

10) . For Johnst one, t he pr obl em of ma( al was t he r eason f or t he

Exi l e; t her e was a br eak i n ma( al onl y under Davi d and Sol omon –

he def i nes ma( al as t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve God hi s due ( “ Gui l t ” 116-

118) . I wi l l di scuss ma( al f ur t her i n Chapt er Thr ee. Johnst one

al so br i ef l y t ouches on t he poss i bi l i t y of Chr oni c l es bei ng a

k i nd of mi dr ash, i . e. , t he r ei nt er pr et at i on of a canoni cal t ext ,

and t hat t he Chr oni c l er saw hi msel f as hei r t o a k i nd of

pr ophet i c t r adi t i on of pr esent i ng t he l i f e of I sr ael ( WJ 1: 23) .

79

Pet er Ackr oyd al so di spenses wi t h t he not i on of

Chr oni cl es as a wor k of hi st or i ogr aphy, i nst ead deal i ng wi t h t he

Chr oni cl er as an i nt er pr et er ( Chr oni c l er 275- 76) . He suggest s

t hat we mi ght see Chr oni cl es as a ki nd of summa of t he t heol ogy

of t he ent i r e Hebr ew Bi bl e, at t empt i ng t o uni f y t he t r adi t i on i n

a compr ehensi ve way ( 280) . The Chr oni cl er ’ s t heol ogy was

concer ned wi t h: 1) t he Templ e cul t ; 2) t he Davi di c i deal ; 3) t he

l i nk bet ween Davi d and t he Templ e; and 4) t he cent r al i t y of

Jer usal em t o t he communi t y ( 282- 288) .

Wi l l i amson suggest s t hat i t i s mor e usef ul t o l ook at t he

t hemes t hat wer e i mpor t ant t o t he Chr oni cl er , r at her t han t r yi ng

t o sket ch out t he Chr oni cl er ’ s t heol ogy ( HGMW 24) ; however , hi s

suggest ed t hemes seem t o me t o be t heol ogi cal i n scope. The mai n

t hemes f or Wi l l i amson ar e: 1) t he Peopl e I sr ael – a di st i nct i ve

not i on of t he peopl e of I sr ael as t he peopl e of God; 2) ki ngshi p

– wher e t he ki ngshi p of I sr ael i s l i nked t o t he ki ngshi p of God;

3) t he Templ e – especi al l y as t he f ul f i l l ment of al l t he var i ous

wor shi p t r adi t i ons of I sr ael ’ s past ; and 4) r et r i but i on and

r epent ance ( di scussed bel ow) ( HGMW 24- 33) . He al so suggest s t hat

t he Chr oni cl er saw Samuel - Ki ngs as a sour ce r at her t han a t ext

( i t was not unal t er abl e) , and t hat we shoul d l ook f or t he

Chr oni cl er ’ s ai ms i n hi s t hemes, not i n hi s use of ear l i er

mat er i al ( “ Hi s t or y” 33) .

The i dea of Chr oni cl es as expr essi ng a t heol ogy of

i mmedi at e r et r i but i on i s common, and i s di scussed i n t he wor ks of

80

many aut hor s. Wi l l i amson has poi nt ed out t hat t hi s has l ong

been r ecogni zed, especi al l y i n t he wor ks of Jul i us Wel l hausen and

Ger har d von Rad ( I sr ael 67) . Mor e r ecent l y, i t has been

di scussed i n t he wor k of Raymond Di l l ar d. Di l l ar d suggest s t hat

i n t he non- synopt i c passages of Chr oni cl es t her e i s st r ong

evi dence of t hi s r et r i but i on t heol ogy: seeki ng God, or humbl i ng

onesel f , or pr ay i ng or t ur ni ng t o God at cr uci al moment s i s

l i nked t o good f or t une; wher eas not seeki ng, not humbl i ng onesel f

or f or saki ng God i s l i nked t o ev i l f or t une. However , t hi s

doct r i ne does not al ways hol d, and i s weaker i n t he sect i ons of

Chr oni cl es t hat deal wi t h Davi d and Sol omon ( “ Rewar d” 165- 66,

169- 70) . Si mi l ar l y, Roddy Br aun, bui l di ng on Di l l ar d’ s wor k,

poi nt s out t hat t hi s i s t he f r amewor k i nt o whi ch al l eval uat i ons

of k i ngs i n Chr oni cl es ar e f i t t ed – but t her e i s al so r oom f or

r epent ance i n t he Chr oni cl er ’ s t heol ogi cal f r amewor k ( RB xxxvi i i -

xxxi x) .

Ehud Ben Zvi has wr i t t en a ser i es of ar t i c l es deal i ng wi t h

t he Chr oni cl er as a t heol ogi an. He poi nt s out t hat t he

Chr oni cl es expounded t he t heol ogy t hat i ndi v i dual act i ons l ead t o

per sonal r ewar ds or puni shment s ( a “ doct r i ne of r et r i but i on” ) ,

but t hat because t hi s t heol ogy does not al ways hol d t r ue ( “ Sense”

38- 39) , Chr oni cl es ’ t heol ogy i s mor e nuanced. Thus, t he Tor ah

( God’ s l aw) i s mor e i mpor t ant t han ei t her t he Templ e or t he

Davi di c ki ng: I sr ael i t es wi t hout a Davi di c k i ng or t he Templ e can

st i l l seek God’ s wi l l ( “ Gat eway” 239- 244) .

81

When we t ur n t o a di scussi on of Chr oni cl es as exeget i cal

or i nt er pr et i ve i n nat ur e, t he aut hor t hat s t ands out most i s

Mi chael Fi shbane. I n hi s Bi bl i cal I nt er pr et at i on i n Anci ent

I sr ael , al t hough he vi ews Chr oni cl es as hi st or i ogr aphy, he sees

i t s modus oper andi as bei ng exeget i cal , whi ch I woul d ar gue i s a

t heol ogi cal appr oach t o t he t ext . 29 Fi r s t , he cont r ast s

mi dr ashi c f eat ur es wi t h t he f eat ur es of hi st or i ogr aphy: t he

hi st or i ogr aphi c f eat ur es of Chr oni cl es i nc l ude i t s “ exposi t or y ,

di dact i c , or edi f y i ng” nat ur e ( 381) . Mi dr ashi c exegesi s , on t he

ot her hand, “ i s t he speci f i c r ei nt er pr et at i on or r ewor ki ng of

speci f i c sour ces, ” and t hus const i t ut es one of t he t echni ques of

hi st or i ogr aphy i n gener al ( 381) . Fi shbane makes t he poi nt t hat

t he Chr oni cl er woul d not have expect ed hi s wor k t o be r ead

synopt i cal l y wi t h Samuel - Ki ngs; r at her , t he Chr oni cl er was

cr eat i ng a new wor k, whi ch pur por t ed t o be aut hor i t at i ve.

However , we can uncover t he “ exeget i cal concer ns of t he

Chr oni cl er ” by compar i ng Chr oni c l es t o Samuel - Ki ngs as t he t ext

i s t r ansf or med t heol ogi cal l y ( 382- 83) . Thus, assessment s of t he

var i ous ki ngs ar e based not so much on whet her t hey di d r i ght or

wr ong ( as i n Ki ngs) , but r at her on t he pr omot i on of Tor ah

obser vance – t he emphasi s i s i ncr eased on mat t er s of t heol ogi cal

i mpor t ance ( 385- 87) . As wel l , t he Chr oni c l er r eshaped hi s

sour ces i n or der t o r ef l ect t he t heol ogi cal concer ns of hi s own

day ( 387- 88) . The Chr oni c l er al so i ncr eased t he i mpor t ance of

pr ophet s and pr ophet i c speeches, and by doi ng so was “ abl e t o

82

t each hi s cont empor ar i es about t he r est or at i ve power of

r epent ance and t he r ewar ds f or pi et y” ( 390- 91) .

Accor di ng t o Fi shbane, not onl y di d t he Chr oni cl er

t r ansf or m hi s sour ces t heol ogi cal l y; he al so came up wi t h new

t heol ogi cal expl anat i ons f or wel l - known hi st or i cal event s. He

expl ai ned event s accor di ng t o what was nor mat i ve i n hi s own day,

i . e. , accor di ng t o t he l egi s l at i on of t he Tor ah i n books such as

Levi t i cus and Number s ( 392- 94) . 30 One of hi s st r at egi es f or doi ng

so was t o r econt ext ual i ze t he ear l i er t r adi t i ons; he r egr ouped,

added, or del et ed mat er i al and combi ned t ext s i n new cont ext s i n

or der t o make hi s t heol ogi cal poi nt , a t echni que wel l - known by

t he l at er r abbi s ( 399) . Fi shbane r el i es on r abbi ni c model s f or

hi s descr i pt i on of exeget i cal met hods i n t he Bi bl e: he sees

evi dence f or t he devel opment of t hese model s i n t he Bi bl e i t sel f ,

bef or e t he l at er r abbi s devel oped t hei r own i nt er pr et i ve

t r adi t i ons. Al t hough i t may ver y wel l be t r ue t hat t he

r abbi ni cal met hods of a f ew cent ur i es l at er devel oped f r om

met hods of aut hor s l i ke t he Chr oni cl er , i t does not expl ai n how

t he Chr oni cl er devel oped hi s exeget i cal t echni que ( i f t hat i s

what i t i s) .

Fi nal l y, we t ur n t o a di scussi on of Chr oni cl es as a wor k of

l i t er at ur e, concer ned wi t h s t y l i st i c i ssues and not hi st or i cal or

t heol ogi cal ones. Her e, we mi ght ask t he quest i on of t he

Chr oni cl er ’ s pur pose i n t er ms of genr e: what l i t er ar y genr e was

t he Chr oni cl er wor ki ng wi t hi n, i f not wi t hi n t he genr es of

83

hi st or i ogr aphy or t heol ogy? T. Sugi mot o ar gues t hat cont r ar y

t o t he v i ews of schol ar s who see Chr oni c l es as hi s t or i ogr aphy or

t heol ogy, Chr oni cl es i s not exeget i cal or i nt er pr et i ve

l i t er at ur e: t he Chr oni cl er ’ s changes t o Samuel - Ki ngs ar e not

meant t o i nt er pr et or updat e Samuel - Ki ngs, but r at her ar e meant

t o enhance t he Chr oni c l er ’ s own l i t er ar y pur pose ( 70- 74) .

Lesl i e Al l en sees Chr oni cl es as a ser i es of homi l i es, i . e. ,

“ sel f - cont ai ned messages i n l i t er ar y f or m” ( 23) . He di scusses

t he var i ous r het or i cal mar ker s of t he uni t s of Chr oni c l es,

especi al l y wi t h r espect t o r ecur r i ng mot i f s, such as pr s i n 1

Chr on. 13- 15, and cont r ast ed mot i f s, such as t he cont r ast bet ween

t he House of Ahab and t he House of Davi d i n 2 Chr on. 21- 23. Li ke

most of t he essays i n The Chr oni cl er as Aut hor ( except i ons

i ncl ude t he cont r i but i ons by Boer , Wr i ght , and Tr ot t er ) , Al l en

per f or ms a l i t er ar y anal ys i s i n or der t o subst ant i at e a vi ew of

Chr oni cl es as hi st or i ogr aphy or t heol ogy. 31 Ther e has been ver y

l i t t l e wor k done on Chr oni cl es t hat seeks t o descr i be t he meani ng

of Chr oni c l es as a f i c t i onal wor k ( e. g. , as a novel ) .

I n Novel Hi s t or i es, Rol and Boer di scusses Chr oni cl es as

par t of hi s l ar ger wor k of met acomment ar y on t he wor ks of Geor g

Lukács and Mar t i n Not h. He r eads Chr oni cl es i n t he l i ght of

ut opi an l i t er at ur e and sci ence f i c t i on, but does so i n or der t o

st r ess “ t he sheer ar t i f i ci al i t y of any bi bl i cal r eadi ng,

par t i cul ar l y i n a post moder n cont ext ” ( 136) . He shows how

r eadi ng Chr oni cl es as ut opi an l i t er at ur e shoul d cause us t o see

84

ot her r eadi ngs of bi bl i cal t ext s ( such as Not h’ s The

Deut er onomi st i c Hi st or y) as si mi l ar l y ar t i f i ci al . 32 He cont r ast s

t he ut opi an or i deal I sr ael of Chr oni cl es wi t h t he dyst opi an

I sr ael of t he Deut er onomi c Hi s t or y ; he suggest s t hat by

pr esent i ng t hi s i deal past , Chr oni cl es al so pr esent s hope f or a

f ut ur e wher e t hi s i deal I sr ael wi l l be r eal i zed ( 138) . For Boer ,

Chr oni cl es “ neut r al i zes” Samuel - Ki ngs i n t he t hemes of k i ngshi p,

cul t , I s r ael and t he r ol e of God i n t he wor l d ( 151) . By l i nki ng

ut opi an l i t er at ur e wi t h sc i ence f i ct i on, he i s abl e t o suggest

t hat Chr oni c l es i s abl e t o pr esent an al t er nat i ve wor l d and an

al t er nat i ve hi st or y f or hi s communi t y ( 156) . 33 By maki ng Davi d

and Sol omon i deal i zed, t he Chr oni c l er was abl e t o enhance t he

Templ e, a Templ e t hat Boer sees as t he cent r e of l i f e i n t he

post - exi l i c communi t y ( 166) . I n hi s ear l i er wor k, Boer suggest s

t hat Chr oni c l es mar ked a shi f t f r om a r el i gi ous way of l ooki ng at

t he wor l d t o a pol i t i cal one ( Jameson 279- 284) . Thi s concept has

been ext r emel y benef i c i al t o my own t hi nki ng on t he nat ur e and

f unct i on of Chr oni cl es, t o whi ch I wi l l now t ur n.

What t hen i s my own hypot hesi s about t he genr e of

Chr oni cl es? Thr ough an exami nat i on i n t he next f our chapt er s of

t he di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps bet ween al l t he t ext s ( Chr oni cl es,

Samuel - Ki ngs, t he Cyr opaedi a, Her odot us, Ct esi as) speci f i cal l y

f ocused on t he f i gur e of t he i deal r ul er , I wi l l at t empt t o show

t hat Chr oni c l es i s a wor k of pol i t i cal phi l osophy. Because

Chr oni cl es i s set i n t he same pl ace and among t he same peopl e as

85

i t s aut hor ( unl i ke t he Cyr opaedi a) , i t i s t empt i ng t o descr i be

i t as hi st or i ogr aphy. However , Chr oni cl es i s ut opi an, pr esent i ng

t hat ut opi a as a hi s t or i cal f act i n or der t o j ust i f y i t s t heor i es

about l eader shi p, t he peopl e, t he cul t , and God. I t i s

t heol ogi cal , i n t hat t he r ol e of God and pr oper behavi our t owar ds

God i s ver y i mpor t ant , and i s a f act or i n l abel i ng t he i deal .

However , i t i s not pr i mar i l y t heol ogy, nor i s i t pr i mar i l y

hi st or i ogr aphy: t hese ar e t he t ool s, but not t he f i ni shed wor k.

The pur pose of t hi s di sser t at i on i s, t hen, t wo- f ol d: t o exami ne

t he di al ogi c r el at i onshi ps bet ween t ext s , and t o use t he di al ogi c

const r uct i on of t he i deal r ul er t o show t hat i n genr e, Chr oni c l es

i s ver y si mi l ar t o t he Cyr opaedi a; i t i s pol i t i cal phi l osophy.

86

Notes

1. St i l l and Wor t on’ s i nt r oduct i on ( “ I nt r oduct i on” ) t o t hei redi t ed vol ume on i nt er t ext ual i t y pr ov i des an excel l ent over v i ewof t he devel opment of t he concept , as wel l as some of i t s mor ei mpor t ant i ncar nat i ons.

2. Mai poi nt s out t hat Kr i st eva appr opr i at ed Bakht i n’ s i deas f orher own pur poses, and t hat Bakht i n’ s i deas may not be cl ear l yr ef l ect ed i n concept s of i nt er t ext ual i t y devel oped onl y f r omKr i s t eva’ s wor k ( 33) .

3. For a di scuss i on of t he wor ki ngs of al l us i on andi nt er t ext ual i t y i n Gr eek l i t er at ur e, especi al l y i n epi c, l yr i cand dr ama, see Hubbar d ( 33- 40) .

4. St i l l and Wor t on see Ar i s t ot el i an mi mesi s as “ t he r educt i onand hence i nt ens i f i cat i on of a mass of t ext s known t o t he poet ”( 4) .

5. Gr ay poi nt s out t hat by t he t hi r d cent ur y BCE, mi mesi s wasbei ng used t o descr i be t he desi r abl e at t r i but es of hi s t or y aswel l as t r agedy; i t was a wel l - known t echni cal t er m by t he f i r stcent ur y BCE ( 467- 68) .

6. Thi s sect i on i s an expanded ver si on of t he di scussi on ofdi al ogi sm i n my ar t i cl e “ The Di al ogi sm of Chr oni cl es” ( Mi t chel l312- 19) .

7. Hol qui s t , however , sees di al ogi sm as t he uni f yi ng f eat ur e ofBakht i n’ s wor k, so t hat al l of Bakht i n’ s var i ous wor ks can ber educed t o t he wor ki ng out of t hi s pr i nc i pl e ( 15) . Todor ov makest he l i nk bet ween di al ogi sm and i nt er t ext ual i t y ; whi l e admi t t i ngt hat Bakht i n never used t he t er m “ i nt er t ext ual i t y, ” he deci des t or eser ve “ di al ogi sm” f or speci f i c pur poses, whi l e descr i bi ng al lof Bakht i n’ s wor k on di al ogi sm under t he r ubr i c of" i nt er t ext ual i t y . ”

8. A s i mi l ar ar gument has been made by Hol qui s t ( 68- 69) .

9. Newsom, however , has ar gued t hat s i nce t her e i s not oneaut hor of t he Bi bl e, we cannot appr oach t he ent i r e Bi bl e as apol yphoni c t ext ( 296- 97) .

10. Thi s i s t he def i ni t i on of het er ogl ossi a I wi l l be usi ng,based on “ Di scour se i n t he Novel ” ( 263) . I r eal i ze t hat

87

het er ogl ossi a mor e of t en has connot at i ons of t he di f f er ent soc i alspeech t ypes ( al so descr i bed i n “ Di scour se” [ 263] ) . However ,s i nce i t i s ver y di f f i cul t t o f i nd such di f f er ent soci al speecht ypes i n t he Hebr ew Bi bl e, I wi l l be usi ng het er ogl oss i a t o r ef ert o t he di f f er ent genr es of speech, especi al l y i nser t ed speech,f ound i n Chr oni c l es and t he Cyr opaedi a. Unl i ke aut hor s of 19t h

cent ur y novel s ( whi ch Bakht i n st udi ed) , bi bl i cal aut hor s seem nott o have been i nt er est ed i n r epr esent i ng di f f er ent f or ms of speechi n t hei r wor ks.

11. Thus, Tat um al so l ooked at t he Cyr opaedi a as t he pr ecur sort o t he Gr eek novel ( “ Educat i on” ; c f . Bower sock 124) . Wi l l sdi scussed t he f eat ur es of t he Jewi sh novel l as of t he Hel l eni st i cper i od i n hi s ar t i cl e. I woul d suggest t hat Chr oni c l es coul d beseen as a pr ecur sor t o t he Jewi sh novel l a i n t he same way t hatt he Cyr opaedi a i s seen as t he pr ecur sor t o t he Gr eek novel l a.

12. For a di scuss i on of Bakht i n’ s eval uat i on of Lot man, see Rei d( “ Who” 327- 38, 331) , wher e he suggest s t hat i n hi s publ i shedar t i cl e Bakht i n eval uat es Lot man f ai r l y and appr ov i ngl y( “ Response” 2- 3) . Thi s i s i n cont r ast t o t he pr i vat e not es wher ehe seems t o have f undament al l y mi sunder st ood Lot man’ s wor k( “ Not es” 135; “ Met hodol ogy” 169) .

13. Bet hea suggest s t hat Bakht i n’ s i nf l uence on Lot man can bef ound begi nni ng i n t he 1980s, not t he 1970s ( 1) .

14. Even i n hi s ear l i er wor k, Lot man showed an awar eness ofcul t ur e and cul t ur al syst ems ( cf . Lot man & Pyat i gor sky) . Thi swas devel oped i n hi s l at er wor k t o t he ext ent t hat i n Uni ver se oft he Mi nd he di scussed t ext s and cul t ur e as al l par t of t hesemi ospher e, al l gener at i ng meani ng. Cf . Shukman ( 1) .

15. Fol l owi ng Jakobson’ s communi cat i on model ( 353) .

16. I n hi s ear l i er wor k, Lot man cal l s t hi s “ i nt er nal speech” or“ i nt er nal communi cat i on. ” Cf . “ Two Model s . ”

17. Ther e i s st i l l consi der abl e debat e over t he aut hor shi p oft hi s wor k: some consi der i t t he wor k of Bakht i n, ot her s t he wor kof Vol oš i nov, whi l e st i l l ot her s consi der i t mor e or l ess acol l abor at i ve ef f or t . See Hol qui s t ( 8) , Rei d ( 7- 20) ,t r ansl at or s’ pr ef ace t o Vol oši nov ( i x- xi ) .

18. See Ger a f or a di scussi on of t he cont ext of t he Cyr opaedi a( 1- 13) , cf . Due ( “ Xenophon” ) .

88

19. Hi r sch i s one of t he ver y f ew schol ar s who have consi der edt he Cyr opaedi a t o have hi s t or i cal usef ul ness ( Fr i endshi p 66- 70) .Cf . especi al l y hi s di scuss i on about Xenophon’ s own exper i encesand hi s sour ces ( “ 1001” 72- 73) .

20. Cont r a Lucc i oni , who consi der s t hat Xenophon was not wr i t i nga wor k of ut opi an f i ct i on but r at her pr epar i ng f or t he r enewal oft he Gr eek and “ bar bar i an” wor l ds ( 254) .

21. Except i ons among t he cl assi ci st s i ncl ude t he ar t i cl es byBr eebaar t and Wood, who bot h exami ne t he pol i t i cal phi l osophy ofXenophon. Bot h l ament t he l ack of at t ent i on pai d t o Xenophon’ sphi l osophy.

22. Pr obabl y t he best di scuss i on of t he Per si an- per i od cont extf or ear l y Judai sm i s Ber qui s t ’ s Judai sm i n Per si a’ s Shadow; t hepoi nt s I have made ar e dr awn l ar gel y f r om t hi s wor k.

23. See Gr aham, Hogl und & McKenzi e f or t he f i r s t ; Gr aham &McKenzi e f or t he second; t he t i t l e of t he t hi r d ( pr oposed book)was communi cat ed t o me by M. P. Gr aham.

24. Not e Japhet ’ s use of t he wor d “ i di osyncr at i c” t o descr i bet he Chr oni cl er ’ s hi s t or y : i t i mpl i es t hat t her e i s a “ cor r ect ”ver s i on of bi bl i cal hi st or y, whi ch t he Chr oni c l er di st or t s .Myer s seems t o be i n t he mi nor i t y when he st at es t hat t heChr oni cl er “ di d not del i ber at el y di s t or t hi s t or y t o f i t hi spur pose” ( JMM1 xxx) .

25. Cf . Japhet , “ [ The Chr oni c l er ’ s phi l osophy] i s f ounded on af i r m bel i ef i n t he power of r easoni ng and per suasi on, appeal i ngt o t he under st andi ng and goodwi l l of t he ot her par t y . Theseel ement s of di al ogue, r easoni ng and per suasi on ar e mani f est i nChr oni cl es i n ever y f or m and l evel of i nt er r el at i onshi p [ …] ” ( SJ37- 38) .

26. The Chr oni c l er ’ s ver s i on of event s was not uni ver sal l yaccept ed by ot her aut hor s i n t he l at e Second Templ e per i od. BenZvi ’ s ar t i cl e ( “ Aut hor i t y” ) on t he use of t he Deut er onomi cHi st or y and Chr oni cl es i n l at e Second Templ e wr i t i ngs concl udest hat most aut hor s t ook t hei r ver si on of hi st or y f r om Samuel - Ki ngsand not Chr oni cl es; onl y Josephus consi s t ent l y used Chr oni cl es asa sour ce ( 73- 76) .

27. “ No one deni es t hat Her odot us has unr el i abl e st or i es i n hi sHi st or i a, but nei t her does one deny t hat hi s book i s a hi s t or y

89

nor t hat i t s aut hor shoul d be consi der ed a hi s t or i an” ( Kal i mi ,“ Hi s t or i an” 85) .

28. Cf . Ben Zvi ( “ Bui l di ng” ) , Knopper s ( “ Hi st or y” ) . Myer s i s anexampl e of an ear l i er schol ar who accept s many of t he hi st or i calc l ai ms of t he Chr oni cl er .

29. Cf . Wi l l i , who sees Chr oni c l es not as a cont i nuat i on oft r adi t i on but i nt er pr et at i on of t r adi t i ons f or cur r ent r eal i t i es,a “ pr ospect i ve hi s t or i ogr aphy” t hat r et el l s t he past whi l espeaki ng about t he pr esent ( 148) .

30. However , Shaver has di sput ed t hat i t was t he Tor ah ( Genesi s-Number s) t hat was aut hor i t at i ve f or t he Chr oni cl er . I nst ead, hear gues t hat Deut er onomi c l aw was mor e i mpor t ant ( 124- 125) .

31. So al so de Vr i es ( “ For ms” ) , who per f or ms an anal ysi s of t hepr ophet i c speeches i n Chr oni cl es, showi ng t hat t he speeches gi vet heol ogi cal comment on t he nar r at i ve cont ent . Cf . Kal i mi , whosees many of t he Chr oni c l er ’ s changes t o t he sour ce t ext asmot i vat ed by a desi r e f or har moni zat i on, and r educes t he l i t er ar yf eat ur es of t he t ext t o a sear ch f or t ext ual hi s t or y( “ Cont r i but i on” ) or hi st or i ogr aphi c met hod ( “ Li t er ar y” ) .

32. He suggest s, “ I f i t i s st r ange t o r ead Chr oni cl es as ut opi anl i t er at ur e or as sci ence f i c t i on, t hen i t i s equal l y s t r ange f orNot h t o r ead Deut er onomy- Ki ngs as a ‘ Deut er onomi st i c Hi s t or y ’ ,as, i n ot her wor ds, a hi st or i cal novel ” ( Boer , Novel 136- 137) .

33. One of t he most seduct i ve aspect s of Boer ’ s ar gument i s t hatt he l avi shness of t he descr i pt i on of t he Templ e cul t i s acompl et e f i c t i on – i t r epr esent s t he compl et e l ack of such al avi shness i n t he Chr oni cl er ’ s day, and a t ype of wi sh-f ul f i l l ment ( Novel 160- 61) .