No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
The twentieth century has been the century of interpretation, representing at the same time its celebration and its devaluation. It opens with Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams (1900) and Nietzsche’s statement that there are no facts but only interpretations and ends up in the early 1960s with Susan Sontag’s attack on interpretation and her dramatic appeal for an ‘erotics of art’ in place of a hermeneutics. However polemical Sontag’s attitude might seem, she is not the only one who expresses this kind of distrust toward interpretation. Others too talk about the ‘crisis’ of interpretation or its transgression.
1 See Sontag, Susan, Against Interpretation and Other Essays (N. York 1982) (1 1964).Google Scholar
2 See Levin, Harry, ‘The Crisis of Interpretation’ in Teaching Literature — What Is Needed Now, eds. Engell, James and Perkins, David, 29–47 Google Scholar and McHale, Brian, ‘Against Interpretation, Iconic Grammar, Anxiety of Influence and Poetic Artifice’, Poetics Today, no. 1 (Winter 1982) 141–158 Google Scholar. For a review of the various trends in literary interpretation see Newton, K.M., Interpreting the Text: A Critical Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Literary Interpretation (London 1990).Google Scholar
3 Culler, Jonathan, ‘Beyond Interpretation’ in The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (London 1981) 5.Google Scholar
4 ‘Every poem is a misinterpretation of a parent poem. A poem is not an overcoming of anxiety, but is that anxiety. Poets’ misinterpretations or poems are more drastic than critics’ misinterpretations or criticism, but this is only a difference in degree and not at all in kind. There are no interpretations but only misinterpretations, and so all criticism is prose poetry’. Bloom, Harold, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (London 1973) 94–5.Google Scholar
5 Iser, Wolfgang, ‘The Interplay Between Creation and Interpretation’, New Literary History, no. 2 (special issue on Interpretation and Creation) (Winter 1984) 387–395.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., 395.
7 See Critical Inquiry, no. 1 (September 1982) (Special issue on the Politics of Interpretation) and Jameson, Fredric ‘On Interpretation: Literature as a Socially Symbolic Act’ in The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (London 1981) 17–102 Google Scholar. For the politics of interpretation in a Greek context and particularly as regards Cavafy’s poetry see Jusdanis, G., ‘The Modes of Reading; Or Why Interpret? A search for the Meaning of “Imenos”’ Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Nos. 1 & 2 (Spring-Summer 1983) 137–148 Google Scholar and Lambropoulos, V., ‘The Violent Power of Knowledge: The Struggle of Critical Discourses for Domination Over Cavafy’s “Young Men of Sidon, A.D. 400V.’”, Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, op. cit., 149–166.Google Scholar
8 See Culler, J., On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (London 1983) 92–4.Google Scholar
9 Papadiamantis, Alexandros, ‘A Dream among the Waters’ in Tales from a Greek Island, tr. E. Constantinides (Baltimore 1987) 84–94 Google Scholar. Henceforth page numbers will be given in parenthesis after each long quotation.
10 It should be noted here that Papadiamantis mentions Father Sisois earlier in 
Apanta, 2, ed.
Triantaphyllopoulos, N.D. (Athens
1982) 603.Google Scholar
11 See Propp, Vladimir, The Morphology of the Folktale (Austin 1968.Google Scholar
12 See Bremond, Claude, ‘La logique des possibles narratifs’, Communications 8 (1966) 60–76 and Logique du récit (Paris 1973).Google Scholar
13
Vikelas, D., 
ed. Sahinis, Ap. (Athens
1979) 24.Google Scholar
14
Farinou-Malamatari, G., 
(1887–1910) (Athens
1987) 273.Google Scholar
15 Tracing its arcadianism and exploring its links with the pastoral genre constitutes another approach to the story. In this connection see
Kolyvas, I.K., 
no. 1, Protohronia
1992, 14–31
Google Scholar and
Farinou-Malamatari, G. ‘H 
(Athens
1992) 56–59.Google Scholar
16
Elytis, Od., 
(Athens n.d.) 29
Google Scholar
17 G. Farinou-Malamatari, op. cit., 265.
18
ed.
Valetas, G., vol.6 (Athens
1955) 598.Google Scholar
19
ed.
Moullas, Pan. (Athens
1974) p.vβ.Google Scholar
20 See
Alexiou, Margaret, ‘Women in Two Novels of Stratis Myrivilis: Myth, Fantasy and Violence’, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook (1989) 117–141
Google Scholar. And in 
(The Mermaid Madonna), another novel by Myrivilis, the incident in chapter 38 between Lambis and Smaragdi, who swims carefree and naked in the sea before realising the other’s presence, strongly reminds me of A Dream Among the Waters.
21 Constantinides, Elizabeth, ‘Love and Death: The Sea in the Work of Alexandres Papadiamantis’, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 4 (1988) 99–110.Google Scholar
22 Felman, Shoshana, ‘Turning the Screw of Interpretation’, Yale French Studies 55/56 (1977) 94–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Harold Bloom, op. cit., 94 and 70.
24 Bennett, Tony, ‘Text, Readers, Reading formations’, Literature and History 9, no. 2 (Autumn 1983) 214 Google Scholar and 227 and ‘Texts in history: the determinations of readings and their texts’, in Post-structuralism and the Question of history, eds. Derek Attridge, Geoff Bennington & Robert Young (Cambridge 1987) 63–81.
25 Young, Robert, ‘Back to Bakhtin’, Cultural Critiques 2 (Winter 1985-86) 80 Google Scholar. Dialogism, however, does not account for the prevalence of one interpretation over the others, probably because, as Robert Young points out, it does not put forward an adequate theory of power and therefore the operation of the struggle between centripetal and centrifugal forces is not fully explained.
26 Man, Paul de, ‘Dialogue and Dialogism’, Poetics Today 4, no. 1 (1983) 107.Google Scholar
27 Todorov, Tzvetan, Literature and Its Theorists: A Personal view of Twentieth-Century Criticism, tr.Porter, Catherine (London 1988) 161–2.Google Scholar
28 Bakhtin, Mikhail, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, ed. & trans. Emerson, Caryl (Manchester 1984) 69.Google Scholar
29 Todorov, op. cit., 87–8.
30 See Bakhtin, M.M., The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Holquist, Michael, trans. Emerson, Caryl and Holquist, Michael (Austin 1981)Google Scholar; Holquist, Michael, Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World (London 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Bialostosky, Don ‘Dialogic Criticism’, Contemporary Literary Theory, eds. Atkins, G. Douglas & Morrow, Laura (London 1989) 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Lodge, D., After Bakhtin: Essays on Fiction and Criticism (London 1990) 86.Google Scholar