Intertextuality as the Method and Insight of Modern Literary Historiograph

جستارهای نوین ادبی

Article 1, Volume 50, Issue 1 - Serial Number 196, May 2017, Pages 1-22   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jls.v50i1.63583

Authors

Elahe Azimi Yancheshme^{* 1}; Seyyed Aliasghar Mirfaghifardad²

¹Kharazmi University

²University of Isfahan

Abstract

1. Introduction
History of literature is an interdisciplinary field of knowledge that focuses on explaining the history and history of literature during historical periods, the course of changes and transformations of styles, and the development of literary techniques. With the development of literary knowledge, the range of expectations from the history of literature has expanded. What is certain is that the history of literature is not independent knowledge; but it depends on other fields of knowledge such as textology, semantics, critique, history, philosophy, and sociology.
Intertextuality as the great discovery of the century in the field of literature, art and other cultural and human studies, today is one of the new approaches in the world of literature and art, which has caused fundamental changes in the subsequent literary theories of art. Intertextuality or art of communication is a way of examining how literary texts are produced and how they communicate with each other over time. With all the findings and studies that have been done so far about intertextuality, this knowledge has not yet revealed all its potentials and capabilities.
The main discussion of this essay, as stated in the title, is the relation and influence between these literary fields of knowledge; the intertextuality and history of literature. For the first time in Iran, the relationship between these two literary areas was presented in two theoretical books about history of literature written by Mahmoud Fotouhi and later, in the fild of history of literature in Iran and the domain of Persian language, in Evolution and Transformation of Genres (1394) was written by Seyyed Mehdi Zarghani. This study is a small contribution to the world of literature and intertextuality which has investigated and combined theoretical foundations of intertextuality, history of literature, literary criticism and literary theories. The main purpose of this study is to display the common aspects and the relationship between intertextuality and the history of literature.
2. Methodology
This study is based on a descriptive-analytical method in a library research form. In this essay, in a deductive and eclectic approach, we have studied the overlapping and common aspects of the two fields of knowledge of the history of literature and intertextuality in terms of the subject matter, methodology, and the functions of both. Subsequently, with these deductive considerations, we refer to the transactions of these two areas of knowledge and their mutual benefits.
3. Discussion
At a glance, we must say that the main subject of research in the field of intertextuality and the history of literature is the text. The similarities and relationships of these two theoretical areas of knowledge are revealed in this common chapter. The main purpose of the history of literature is to write the history of the developments of literature and literary texts. Intertextuality is also the science of explaining the communication between texts. Hence, these two areas of knowledge have similar and closely related rules.
The history of literature, with all its definitions and bounds, is a historiography and inevitably involves its own rules and limits. Although contemporary literary historians have access to ancient texts such as tidings and other items and sources of traditional history of literature, as soon as they start writing and reporting the past literature in the present time, they inevitably interfere their contemporary language and insight into their work. The intersection of time, place, and position that is inevitable in history of literature provides a space for introducing and developing intertextuality thought. Although nobody has ever admitted to this etymology, but with a different theoretical reflection, it can be relevant. Contemporary literary historians, for linking up with the past literature, go beyond the boundaries of time and space and understand and introduce the past texts with their contemporary life and society. Intertextuality equally passes the same path to remove the text from the monopoly of the author, and the time and place of the author, and to connect with other times and societies. Perhaps nothing like Raman Selden's words suggests this exchange and the symmetry of the past and present: "The current perspective always involves a relationship with the past, but at the same time, the past can only be understood from the limited perspective of the present"(Selden, 1384, p. 76). The literary historiography has two distinct aims: One focuses on the past and the other on the present. This duality is also seen in the intertextuality attitude. The intersection of the times and the connections between literary works and texts is the basis of the intertextuality insight. Therefore, the similarity of the method and the path that we see in the history of literature and intertextuality is not accidental.
The history of literature has a more ancient history than the intertextuality knowledge. Without any bias, it should be said that intertextuality was born in the history of literature, and after developing, it has made its contribution to this field of knowledge; so far as having an intertextual attitude today should be considered as a necessary step in the development of modern history of literature.
4. Conclusion
By summarizing the goals and topics discussed in this study, we found the benefits of intertextual attitudes in literary historical studies. The most significant achievements in integrating the intertextual attitude in compiling the history of literature are as follows:
1. The historical nature is intertwined with the intertextual attitude. Contemporary literary historians, for linking up with the past literature, go beyond the boundaries of time and space and understand and introduce the past texts with the contemporary situation. Intertextuality also passes the same path in order to remove the text from the monopoly of the author and his time and place and to link it with other texts and areas.
2. The relationship between history of literature and intertextuality is reciprocal: Intertextuality, with the aid of the history of literature, recognizes the connective arts of texts, ages, and societies. The history of literature also acquires a deeper understanding of literature through the use of intertextuality techniques.
3. The horizons of expectation and understanding of a literary historian depends on his/her intertextual insight: Intertextuality is not only used in the field of creation, but also in the stage of reading and comprehension of a text.
4. Intertextuality is a literary historiography tool: The past currents have lost their objectivity as well as their historical past, and the literary historians are able to understand and recreate them only through the development of an intertextual attitude in which the boundaries of time and place have been removed.
5. Intertextuality is a necessity for the life and continuity of literary currents: Any criticism of literary works depends on repeated references to other texts. The most certain way to achieve such a goal is to adopt an intertextual perspective that interacts with aristocrats over intertextual and metatextual areas, to deepen hidden relationships, find influential texts and discover public and individual literary currents.

Keywords

History of literature; intertextuality; Theoretical criticism

References

الیوت، تی. اس. (1387). «سنت و استعداد فردی»، ترجمۀ گیتا گرکانی. آزما. شمارۀ 57. فروردین و اردیبهشت. صص 9-11.

بوینو، برنارد. (1384). «تاریخ ‌ادبیات». دربارۀ تاریخ ادبیات. ترجمۀ سهیلا اسماعیلی. تهران: سمت.

تودوروف، تزوتان. (1382). بوطیقای ساختارگرا. ترجمۀ محمد نبوی. چاپ دوم. تهران: آگه.

تودوروف، تزوتان. (1380). نظریۀ ادبیات؛ متن‌هایی از فرمالیست روس. ترجمۀ عاطفه طاهایی. تهران: اختران.

سلدن، رامان. (1387). راهنمای نظریۀ ادبی معاصر. ترجمۀ عباس مخبر. تهران: طرح نو.

حفنی، ناصیف. (1930م.). تاریخ ‌الادب أو حیاة ‌اللغة ‌العربیة. القاهره.

ﺯﺭﻗﺎﻧﯽ، ﺳﯿﺪ ﻣﻬﺪﯼ. (1389). «ﮐﺎﺳﺘﯽ‌ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺵ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎنۀ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺦ‌ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕ‌ﻧﮕﺎﺭﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ». ﻧﺎمۀ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﺴﺘﺎن. ﺷﻤﺎﺭۀ 44. ﺯﻣﺴﺘﺎﻥ. صص 26–5.

سیاح، فاطمه. (1319). «مقام سنت در تاریخ ادبیات». ایران امروز. سال دوم. شمارۀ 9. آذر. صص 9 و 10.

فتوحی، محمود. (1382). «بررسی و نقد تاریخ‌ادبیات‌نگاری در ایران». کتاب ماه ادبیات و فلسفه. شمارۀ 68. خرداد. صص 32-46.

فتوحی، محمود. (1387). نظریۀ تاریخ ادبیات. تهران: سخن.

قره‌باغی، علی اصغر. (1381). «بینامتنیت». گلستانه. شمارۀ 47. اسفند. صص4-38.

‌سمیعی گیلانی، احمد. (1387). «گزارش ‌آرای‌ گوستاو ‌لانسون‌ دربارۀ‌ روش ‌تاریخادبیات‌نگاری». نامۀ فرهنگستان. شمارۀ 40. زمستان.

مکاریک، ایرنا ریما. (1385). دانش‌نامۀ نظریه‌های ادبی معاصر. ترجمۀ مهران مهاجر و محمد نبوی. تهران: آگه.

نامور مطلق، بهمن. (1390). درآمدی بر بینامتنیت؛ نظریه‌ها و کاربردها. تهران: سخن.

نامور مطلق، بهمن . (1387). «یائوس و ایزر: نظریۀ دریافت». پژوهشنامۀ فرهنگستان هنر. شمارۀ 11. صص 93-110.

نیوتن، ک. م. (1378). «مدوف/ باختین: موضوع، وظایف و شیوه‌های تاریخ ‌ادبی». بایا. شمارۀ 8 و 9. آبان و آذر. صص 84-86.

وبستر، راجر. (1378). «بینامتنی، بازخوانی متن با تفسیر امروزی». ترجمۀ مجتبی ویسی. گلستانه. شمارۀ 5 و 6. صص 45-46.

ولک رنه، آوستن وارن. (1373). نظریۀ ادبیات. ترجمۀ ضیاء موحد و پرویز مهاجر. تهران: علمی فرهنگی.

یاحقی، محمدجعفر؛ فرزاد، عبدالحسین. (1382). تاریخ ‌ادبیات ایران و جهان: سال دوم. تهران: چاپ و نشر ایران.

Nelison, w. a. & Throndike, a. h. (1954). A history of English literature, New York: mcmillan, 28th printing.

Genette, Gerald. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Trans. Channa Newman and Clude Doubinsky. London: University of