عنوان مقاله [English]
Intertextuality is a literature theory which has been based on Bakhtine’s Dialogism theory. It was firstly stated by Juliet Kristova. According to this theory each text is produced and read in a dialogue with other texts. Intertextual criticism is a way of reading texts which signifies texts to each other rather than the real world. The hypotext, Habil (Abel) and Qabil (Cain), which hascome in different holy books is inspiring. Kristova specifies that intertextuality is not studying the references. Discovering theintertextual and inter-semiocity relations led to the penetration into the second layer of the text (sign layer). Thus,we can find hidden purports of a text through intertextual criticisms. I read tow texts (Abel Sanchez by Miguel de Unamuno and Symphony of Death by Abbas Maroofi) in dialogue with hypotext (Habil and Qabil). The signifianceof the process differs according to the quality and quantity of deviation from hypotexts. Thus, the dialogue factor to estimate the level of influence of dialogue on both textswill be defined. Inconclusion, this paper proposes a practical method for creating new texts in relation to any other text to introduce an applied factor for categorizing intertextualitis.
In this paper, we’re dealing with three texts: first, the story of Cain and Abel in holy books and then two other books namedAbel written by Miguel D. Unamuno, and finally Samphoni-e Mordegan by Abbas Maroufi. The story of Able and Cain in Holy books is considered as the default text in this paper.Using the deviation method, the meaning is being analyzed in these two texts. In other words, in this research, a different method of discourse analysis with a default text is being approached and the way the meaning has been created through the dialogue will be discussed. This practical approach needs a specific criterion to show the interrelatedness of the texts in dialogue terms. A survey of other researches in the same field will be provided beforehand.
3. Results and Discussion
Any attempts to makea theory more practical leads to establishing somewhat quantitative criteria for organizing the data. Structuralists have followed the same rule in most cases. Intertextuality, like any other literary theory, was a sort of discovery in the beginning. Studying Dostoyevski’s works, Bakhtin noticed different voicesfrom that of the author. Kristeva considered the production and reading of a text as a result of the connection of that text to others of the same sort. Gradually, this discovery was polished by Barth, Jenie, Rifater, and others which resulted intoachanged, more clear and definitive literary theory. Jenie and Rifater analyzed various texts in attempt to apply this new theory and defined several criteria for intertextuality categorization. Comparing Abel Sanchez written by Unamuno withSamphoni-e Mordegan by Abbas Maroufi, this paper tries to introduce a new index to the intertextuality. It revealed that contrary to the form of Unamuno’s text, he hasdeviated more in his default text than Maroufi. The deviation has not been apparent to the extent of removing the footprints of the default text but has doubted Cain’s sinfulness. This creation of meaning is an advantage of Unamuno’s text. He not only creates new meaning by changing the characterization, but also creates meaning for the default text by using the same names and other direct references throughout the story. Having finished the story, the reader finds himself thinking about Abel and Cain rather than Abel Sanchez and Joaquin Munger. This is one of the features of dialogue which causes both texts to promote to a new level.
Thus, in intertextual readings, the use of dialogue factor can be named as a criterion to evaluate the meaning-creation. Furthermore, the manner of Unamuno’s dialogue with the default text of Abel and Cain in Holy Books could influence the creation of meaning in the new text. This type of generation of meaning, which has been done before, urges the writers to doubt the decency of the characters in other stories. Did Othello have the right to kill his wife? Is it acceptable for Hamlet’s uncle to betray him? Did Abel deserve to be killed by Cain?