INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
General Editor
AJ.  V A N D E R JA G T , University of  Groningen
Editorial Board
J.I.  I S R A E L , University College, London
J .D.  N O R T H , University
 o f
  Groningen
H.A.  O B E R M A N , University of Arizona, Tucson
R . H .  P O P K I N , Washington University,
 S t.
 
INTERPRETATION
 A N D   A L L E G O R Y
A N T I Q U I T Y   T O T H E  M O D E R N P E R IO D
EDITED
JON  W H I T M A N
BRILL
L E I D E N   • B O S T O N  • K O L N
2 0 0 0
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Interpretation  an d allegory  : an tiquity  to the  modern period  /  edited by
Jon  Whitman.
p. cm. — (B rill's studies in intellectual history, IS S N
0920-8607
  ; v.
  9 0 0 4 1 1 0 3 9 9
I . H ermeneutics— H istory.
  2.  A llegory.  I .  Whitman, Jon, 1949-
II.
  Series.
B D 2 4 1   .1554  2 0 0 0
121 ' .686—dc21
IP Einheitsaufhahme
Interpretation  and allegory  : antiquity to the mod ern period  / ed. by
J on  Whitman.  - L eiden  ; B oston  ; K oln : B ril l, 200 0
(B rill's studies
ISBN
 90-04-11039-9
ISSN
  0920-8607
I S B N   9 0 0 4 1 1 0 3 9 9
©  Copyright  2000
All rights reserved. No part  of this publication may be
 reproduced,
  translated,  stored  in
a  retrieval system,  or transmitted  in any form  or by any  means,  electronic,
mechanical,
th e appropriate fees  are paid  directly  to The  Copyright
Clearance  Center,
 910
and
 
 
and Historical Change 3
ANTIQUITY TO THE LATE MIDDLE AGES
2.  Present Perspectives: Antiquity  to the  Late Middle  A g e s
[Prologue  to  chapters  3-11]
of
  analysis
  34
ii  Alexandrian allegorization of Jewish  Scripture
[chapter  4]  37
[chapter  5]  40
[chapter  7]  46
writing  [chapter  10]  52
in   Christian Scripture  [chapter  11]  54
 
Exegesis  73
Robert Lamberton
4.  Plato's Soul  and the  Body  of the  Text  in  Philo
and  Origen  89
  Midrashic  Literature  109
on the Destiny of Israel 125
Paula  Fredriksen
Alfred  L.
The  Crisis  in Languedoc  (1304-6)  189
G r e g g
  Stern
in
A.J.
  Minnis
PART TWO
12.
Modern Period  [Prologue  to  chapters
  13~20]  259
'grammars'  of
ii  Mythographic programs
iv
'temporalities'  of
[chapter  17]  28 3
'symbol,'  and  mythology  [chapter  18]  289
vii  Early twentieth-century reassessments
[chapter  20]  299
M o s h e  Idel
14.  Boccaccio: The Mythographer of the City 349
Giuseppe  F .  Mazzotta
Charles Dempsey
  of
  Allegory
1 7.  V e r a  Narratio:  Vice's  N ew  Science  of  Mythology  423
Joseph  Mal i
of  Cultural
Azade  Seyhan
1 9   Constructions  of Allegory  /  Allegories  of  Construction:
Rethinking History through  B e n j a m i n  and  Freud  451
Rainer
  Nagele
Tobin   Siebers
Contributors  487
Index  493
PREFACE
The act of interpretation has a way of turning into the   subject  of
interpretation   itself.  A telling case in point is the the ory and prac-
tice of allegorical interpretation in the West.
D u r i n g
  th e
  from
  to
  topics ranging  from
the explication of a   specific  scriptural term to the reading of ancient
mythology at large. Such investigations have been complemented by
a multitude of analyses of compositional allegory, ranging   from  brief
figures  of  speech to elaborately codified stories. T he con tem pora ry
effort  to  characterize allegorical
  of the  formative
ing
  critical history.
Yet for all the  variety  and  value  of  this history,  th e  effort  to  engage
interpretive allegory at large has recurrently entailed severe prob-
lems.  Its theoretical and  practical  expressions  are scattered in a  for-
m idable nu m be r of texts, situated in an imposing array of places
and periods, composed in a host of idioms and
  forms.
cussions  of it are  themselves  frequently  dispersed  in an  extraordinary
range
  of
  specific
  peri-
ods such as antiquity, or particular approaches such as typology, or
disparate episodes
  in the
  general movement
  of
  allegory.
In the op ening ch apter of this v olum e, I discuss some of the
difficulties
  in any attem pt to develop a composite view of such a
variegated  subject. A t  least  in  this
  life,  to  imagine  a  'definitive'
  account
of  the theory and practice of allegorical interpretation in the West
would  require something of an allegorical vision in its own right.
B ut  perhaps the intensive research of past years has nonetheless pro-
moted  the  possibility  of a  more accessible order,  a  coordinate  frame-
work  with which  to  assess  th e  subject  in its  very diversity.
T o m y
 broad
  dimensions—
specific  format is a practical ,  'working'  design, arranged to encour-
age reinterpretation in
  turn.
I n  chronological scope,  th e  study explores interpretive activity dur-
ing a period of over two thousand years,
  from
  antique glosses and
exegetical treatises  to  m o d e r n  an d  'postmodern'  critical theories.
D emarcating some
  principal interpretive movements during
this period,  it provides detailed analyses of those movements at crit-
ical
  points
  in
se s  of
C hristian,  and  Islamic communities, along with more eclectic ones.
While
  it
cerning the conditions and problems of interpretive  transfer,  it indi-
cates
in
  different
of  disciplines—the study of literature, religion, art, philosophy, and
social
  essays  in  te rms  of
important changes  in  scholarly perspective during  the  past century,
the introductory chapters assess some of the far-reaching implications
of  con tem pora ry research for the significance of allegory at large.
B ut  if it may be  useful  to  suggest  in  advance what  th e  design  of
th e  study  is, it is  also important  to  stress what  it is  not.
First,
  it
  does
  of all
cases  of allegorical theory and practice, whether in the  form  of a
systematic
  opening chap-
te r
  to
  such
  an
  enterprise.
In any case, it is scarcely   feasible  in a single volume even to men-
tion all the important versions of allegorical interpretation in the
West. Some  of the  scholarly treatments  of its  manifold expressions
can be
  found
  in the variety of w orks cited in the detailed an no ta-
tion  of  chapters  1, 2, and 12; the  numerous references in  other chap-
ters;
  and the extensive research specified in the  list  of contributors
near  the end of the  volume.
Second,
  of
allegory an d to align its discussions w ith such a de finition. A s the
introductory chapters indicate, the definition of  'allegory'  fluctuates
radically in  both  historical  and  conceptual terms.  The  study delib-
erately
  includes
  forms
 
with such modulating terms of reference. Similarly, while interpre-
tive  allegory  is a  vast topic  in its own  right,  it is not  possible  to  sep-
arate  it  austerely  from  compositional allegory  itself. Though  th e  study
is designed  to  concentrate  on  interpretive  developments,  it pointedly
calls  attention
  to a
  of
  compositional
Finally,
  of its own
design  as fixed in  form  or  privileged  in  status.  A s t h e  introductory
chapters emphasize,
  structures ,
supplement the categories, or revise the analysis in a multitude of
ways.  T he
  aims  not to  close options
for  f u r t h e r  invest igation,  but to  open opportunit ies  for  changing
perspectives.
  is the
  interdisciplinary research pro-
ject   designed   conducted under   auspices   C e n t e r
Literary Studies  of the  Hebrew  University  of Jerusalem.  T he  early
stages
nized  in  1994-1995  on the  subject,
  'A llegory  and  Cultural  Change'
from
  antiquity
  period.  T h e
  by
  Those
  detailed analyses,
with their intersecting lines of inquiry, comprise all but the intro-
ductory
  chapters
  of
  in
  chap-
ters  1, 2 , and 12  reflect  on  these investigations  and  related  subjects
in
  the context of  shifting  critical attitudes toward allegory as a whole.
T he  list  of contributors near the end of the volume notes the vari-
ety   of  academic
  research
of the  authors  of  essays  on  specific  topics  in  this study.  In  editing
their  essays,  I have allowed some  differences  in convention and style,
including approaches  to  capitalization  and  punctuat ion , norms  of
B ritish  and A m erican spelling, m ethods of transliteration, and  forms
of  annotat ion.  I  hope  that  th e  broader  diversity  of  perspective  and
the variegated range of outlook displayed by these authors will con-
tribute  to a  dialogue among readers  w ho  seek  to  extend their acquain-
tance w ith scholarship on in terpretation beyond their ow n fields of
concentrat ion.
  authors
  I
  express
  at the  original colloquia, their cooperation  and  patience dur-
ing the intricate process of preparing a study of this complexity for
publication,
  and
moderating  sessions  or by sharing their research in  thoughtful  remarks
of
  G oldwasser, Ju liette
H assine, B oaz H uss,  Berel  D ov Lerner,  Shulamit Levy, Doron  N arkiss,
Avigdor W.G.
  Shalom  Sabar,  Shimon Sandbank, David Satran,
D a n i e l  R .  Schwartz , El len Spolsky,  and  Sarah  Stroumsa.  I  would
like
  to include a  word  of collective acknowledgment to the student
assistants  from  the D epartme nt of E nglish of the H ebrew U niversity
who provided practical help with
  the
  colloquia.
T he support of the C enter for L iterary S tudies was indispensable
to
  thanks
  to
  S h l o m i t h R i m m o n -
K e n a n ,  who  presided over  the  C e n t e r  at the  t ime  I  proposed  and
began
  to
  prepare
  the
  project,
  and to
  S a n f o r d B u d i c k ,
  th e
  Center ' s
founding  an d  curre nt D irector ,  w ho  presided over  the  C e n t e r d u r -
ing the
  t ime
  of the
  colloquia themselves.
  O n
  C e n t e r ,
I a lso wish to than k E liyahu H onig, A ssociate V ice-P resident of the
H ebrew Universi ty ,
  th e
  C enter's
activities.  The  volume  and the  project underlying  it  were  made  pos-
sible  by the generous support of the Shirley Palmer Collier Endowment
Fund  for  Literary Studies. With sadness  I  record  the  recent passing
of  Shirley Palmer Coll ier .
D uring the course of m y wo rk I received support  from  the R esearch
C om m ittee of the Faculty of H um anities of the H ebrew U niversity.
A   host  of  l ibrarians  in  Israel  and  abroad
  helped  to  make requested
  scholarly assistance
during   a  late period  of my  work,  I  express  m y  appreciation  to  Piero
Boitani  and  E tan K ohlberg.
With respect to the process leading to publication of the volume
itself,  I  wish  to  acknowledge  the  support  of AJ.  V anderjagt , general
editor
  of
  and  Theo Joppe  and
J ob  Lisman, editors  at  Bril l  at  early stages  in  that process.  I o w e
special thanks  to Ivo Romein,  th e  editor  at  Brill  w ho  graciously  and
patiently facilitated
  benefit
artistic  sensitivity.
  I am
  indebted beyond
m y
  l imits of expression. A lthough no w ords of m ine can adequately
convey   m y  love  fo r  m e m b e r s  of my  family,  by far my  deepest per-
sonal debts
PREFACE  X V
upo n the lasting guidance, encourag em ent , and inspirat ion of my
parents.  Though  the  life  of my  mother  did not  extend  to the  time
of  this  project,  th e  length  of  years granted  to my  father  remains  a
source
  of  special blessing  for me. My  wife,  A huva , helped  to  sustain
me throughout the years of the project with her devoted care and
her
  project,
  from
  plans
  for
th e  colloquia  to  work  on the  v o l u m e ,  w as  e n h a n c e d  by her  keen
powers of
  and her
  abiding warmth
of  spirit.  M y  daughter , N aom i E liora, only  a few  years  old  w h e n
the colloquia beg an, w elcome d guests to our hom e in J erusalem w ith
gifts  of her  wondrous  imagination.
  T he  cherished  gift
  of her  life  daily
enriches m y ow n. A t times I think that conditions of und erstand ing
in the  world  she  explores  may be  broadened,  at  least  in  some mea-
sure,  by
  some contribution
  know that
sustained  forms  of loving understanding long given to me by both
m y  wife  and my  daughter made possible  th e  very conditions  of
  life
in   which  I  wrote.  I  hope  th e  dedication  of  this book  to  A h u v a  and
to N aomi E liora  will  help me to suggest, however inadequately, how
indebted
Jerusalem,  Israel
 
 
i.  Interpreting  the  history  of  interpretation
ii.  Perceptions  of the  past  o v e r  a  generation  ago
H i .   Passages
A n  'insane'  activity,
Protestant scholar, commenting   in the  seventeenth century, described
allegorical interpretation
  of its
  m o s t p r o m i n e n t
  forms.
1
  disenchantment.
  A century  earlier
L u t h e r  h ad  called allegory  a  'beautiful  harlot  w o  fondles  men in
such   a wa y  that  it is  impossible  for her not to be  loved.'  B u t h e
a n n o u n c e d t h a t  he had  escaped  her  embrace:  'I  hate  allegories.'
2
in   as a  kind  of
  'weed'  proliferating  over  the
  life
1
  For the  principles  of  annotation  in  this chapter , including  references to  t imes
of  publication and  'prior  versions' of recent studies, see the introductory note to
'Works
  chapter.
For the  P rotestant scholar (S ixtinus A ma ma),  se e  Annotata  ad  librum  psalmorum  in
Pearson
  et
imperit iae. '
  It is
  of the
1698 edition, citing this discussion   of  allegory, specifically uses  the  phrase
  'asylum
ignorantiae. '
  a  'med-
ical ' one); com pare the refere nce to 'm adn ess' in n. 3 below . A n allusion to
  A m a m a ' s
comment in a
  loose translation appears
  p.
to
  the 1660 edition of Pearson et  al.,  which as far as I have been able to deter-
m i n e
  does  not  include  th e  passage. A mam a's  ow n  practice  is  less
  hostile  to
  'alle-
gory'  than his comment might suggest. See, e.g. , his  C hristological  t rea tment of
Psalm
  sixteenth-century
treatments of the  ' literal'  sense of psalms cited in note 23 below.
2
 
of  the
  E m p i r e .
3
  speech
  by
  which
critics describe allegorical interpr etatio n. B ut the rev erie alway s ends
abruptly with someone protesting that  it is  'unskillful,'  if not  'insane,'
to   subject  the figurative language of such critics to allegorical inter-
pretation  in  turn.
N ot ev eryone, of course , has been so critical of allegorical inter-
pretation. Many  of the  most important commentators  in  antiquity
and the Middle
  A ges regularly practiced  it , and  even during  th e  past
century, som e have argued that i t is quite a norm al thing for inter-
preters
  of the
  twentieth century,
it  was rare to find any expression of this attitude, even in the loose
use  of the  term  by  G . K . C h e s t e r t o n :  'There  can be no  doubt among
sane  m en  that  th e  critic should  be allegorical.'
4
of  the century, however, an increasing number of scholars suggest
that allegorical interpretation is a
  form
which
  individual interpreters and whole communities  seek  to  'make
sense' of old or  strange texts  in new or  familiar circumstances.  From
this
  from
  the Middle
East to western Europe and beyond it have made allegorical inter-
pretation inseparable  from  their very  sense  of  rationality  itself.
Perhaps each of these positions has its point. For the turn to alle-
gorical interpretation repeatedly marks civilizations trying to keep—
or in
  to
  pre-
serve a form ative cultural idiom , the discourse of G reek m ythology,
as
  began  to  fail.  By the  Hellenistic period,
it  helped to provide a  framework  for G reco-R om an philosophic ten-
dencies within
  and at
  a
  revolutionary movement toward
a new religion, C hristianity. In the Middle A ges, it reoriented crit-
ical approaches
within
  Renais-
3
  See  Lamberton  1992,  p.  133, where  the  scholar  is not  named.
  Compare  the
earl ier comment  of the  nineteenth-century scholar A ugust Friedrich G frorer  on Philo
earl ier comment  of the  nineteenth-century scholar A ugust Friedrich G frorer  on Philo
of  A lexandria's allegorical orientation:  'It  is  m a d n e s s ,  but  there's  a  method  in
  it ';
cited  by  G inzberg 1955 (prior version 190 1),  p.  130.
4
  S ee  C h e s te r to n 1 9 0 7 ,  p .
  xi.
  Morton  B loomfield.
 
C h. 1 (i) A   R E T R O S P E C T I V E FO R W A R D   5
sance,  it  provided radical methods  to  realign  a  range  of  texts  and
signs  from  different  t imes  and  settings into systems  of
  'universal '
knowledge
  the
  E n l i g h t e n m e n t
  to the
  from
Y et  despite the persistent importance of allegorical interpretation,
no one has written a systematic history of it  from  antiquity to the
modern period.
  are reasons for this omission. O ne is the sheer
vastness  of  such  a  project.  T o  at tempt  a  history  of  allegorical inter-
pretation in the West would almost be to attempt a history of West-
ern cultural change  itself.  I t would require close acquaintance with
over two thousand years of interpretive theory and practice, a host of
regions  and  peoples,  and a  variety  of genres  and  languages, including
H e b re w , G r ee k , L a ti n, A r ab ic ,  and the  R o m a n c e  an d  G ermanic lan-
guages. Even then there would   be  pressing practical problems.  From
antiquity, for  example, some  of the  most important writings  of  promi-
n e n t G r ee k  and  C hristian allegorists hav e been lost.  I t has  been
remarked
  by the  prolific  Christ ian
interpreter  Origen  alone, 275 have b een lost in their original G reek
versions, with
  Renaissance,
a n u m b e r o f  significant  interpretive works have never received con-
temporary critical editions, with detailed notes, indices,
  and
  com-
mentary.
d e   i  d e l  de gli  antichi  has
  acquired
7
  N o  single scholar could master more than  a  small por-
tion
  of
  such
  a
  complex
  and
  Western culture, even histories of 'civilization' as a whole, how-
ever dated  in  fashion  and  deficient  in  conception, have been attempted.
The sheer expanse of allegorical interpretation is not the sole rea-
son for the  limits  of its  investigation.
There  is  another reason  for the  lack  of  such  a  history,  ' internal '
to the
  is not
  extensive
below.
b
  Runia
  See the  assessment  of J.  Quasten,  cited  by
  Runia
  1993,  p.  1 7 2 ,  n. 78.
' See the  edition  of  A u z z a s  et al.  1996;  on  early  editions  of the  Imagini  (the  title
of  which varies  in  form),  see pp.  6 0 1 - 1 8 , w i t h  th e  discussion  of Mulryan  1981  about
 
not
  conceptual
  'norms,'  but a
series  of critical negotiations. A cts of interpre tive allegory are trans-
actions between fluctuating critical communities and formative texts.
While these transactions regularly draw upon shared interpret ive
m ethods, they are situated in times and places, m arked by tensions
and
  and its
developing canon. It thus produces very limited results to try to out-
line
  the  allegorization  of a single text (fo r exam ple, Jewish  Scripture—
which for Jews  is the  principal  'reading,'  th e  Mikra,  but for  Christ ians ,
only  part   principal reading,   Moslems,   partial mis-
reading)  or to try to  isolate  a  single  ' form'  of  interpretation
  (for
expressly
ently  defend  for  themselves. When  th e  classical philologist Johannes
Geffcken
the twentieth century on
almost exclusively to antiquity), he   found  himself  'bewildered'  by an
antique  'confusion  of terms'; early C hristian A pologists opposed
  pagan
 pagan
Celsus  attacked C hristian allegory yet w as  'an  allegorist  himself. '  For
Geffcken,
fusion  about texts. B oth parties,  he  complained,
  ' G r e e k s
  as  well  as
  path.'
8
This  expression  of  displeasure suggests  a  third reason limiting  th e
study
  of
turies,  such interpretation has  frequently  been approached with con-
spicuous  unease.  I n part  this unease  is the  result  of R e fo rm a t io n  and
R omant ic arguments that  'allegory'  violates  the  historical particularity
and imaginative integrity of texts. By the nineteenth century, when
philologists and other historians were applying to a host of  subjects
massive
  allegorical interpretation  w as
frequently  conceived as a procedure alien to the principles of proper
philology   itself.  A lternativ e app roach es to historical recov ery in post-
R om antic 'hermen eutics , ' em phasizing the  effort  to understand the
conditions under which a text was created,   found  allegory scarcely
less  alien  a  procedure. D ilthey considered  it an  apologetic device,
9
'an  art as  indispensable  as it is useless.'   B ut  beyond  its  uneasy recep-
S ee
  248.
 
C h . 1  (ii)  A  R E T R O S P E C T I V E F O R W A R D  7
tion  in recent centuries, the very notion of  allegoria— a  disparity be-
tween
  of
  speaking (G reek  a g o r e u e i r i )  and
  some  'other'
sense (G reek  alias]—has  long  implied  a  certain  dissonance, even  for
those who
  have endorsed
  i t . The  alieniloquium  ('other-speaking'), Isidore
of  Seville called it in his seventh-century Latin, and long afterwards,
th e
  recurs explicitly
able again
  it in
  allegorical inter-
pretation remains somew hat jolt ing.  Not  everyone will be  p ers uad ed
by  the  H ellenistic  Jewish  exegete
  Philo
  biblical
  injunction
not to eat the  fruit  of  trees  for  three years (Levit icus  19:23)  suggests
that  the  fruit  of  instruction remains intact throu ghou t  the  threefold
division of t ime into past , present, and   future.
1 1
  early m edieval C hristian mythographer  Fulgentius
that the shipwreck at the opening of the  Aeneid  signifies  the dangers
of childbirth.
1 2
  Su ch r ead ers  m ay  sympathize with  a  r e m a r k m a d e
already  in  antiquity  by  Basil  the  Great  while interpreting G enesis,  a
text that  by his  t ime  had  been extensively allegorized.  'I  kn ow  the
laws
  of
 allegory,'
  he
  sighed,
  but
  'for
  me,
  grass
  is
 grass.'
13
 Part
difficulty  of  assessing allegorical interpretation  is  that such  an  assess-
m ent is i tself an interp retive act , inescapably situated— com fortably
or uncomfortably—in the
  generation
  ago
implici t commentary  on the  critic's  own  interpretive positions.  To
put those positions in perspective, i t might be   helpful  to compare
at t i tudes toward  the
  subject  over  a  generat ion  ago  with more recent
points  of  view.  I f  someone wri t ing  prior  to one of the  conspicuous
turning points in the development of much recent cr i t icism, the late
10
  For  Isidore,  see  Whitman  1987,  p.  266.  Compare  the  twelf th-century  inter-
preter
  of
 Christian
  alieniloquium  (cited
  on the
cited
  in  A l le n 1 9 7 0 ,  p.  2 1 7 ;  and the  s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y  Reformation  theologian
William  Tyndale  on 'strange speaking,'
  cited
in  A l l e n ,  p.  2 4 2 .  More generally, see
Whitman
  1981,
and  Whitaker
13
  See
  Horbury
 
1960s,  had tried to construct an outline of allegorical interpretation
from   antiquity
  to the
  tell,
Though  an
 1967)
would have been able to draw upon a number of detailed studies
exploring diverse aspects
  difficult  to
  suggested
  by a
  select  list
of  some of the principal works then available, grouped according to
broad categories  and  arranged within those categories according  to
the  successive historical periods (for example, antiquity,  the  Middle
Ages)  on
  several cases only brief  forms
of  the original titles with their initial publication dates are given here.
The
  list
  of 'Works  Cited'  at the end of  this  chapter provides
  infor-
mation about dates and titles (for example, English translations) of
some later versions.
  Buff iere ,  Les  Mythes
d'Homere  et la pensee
 grecque (1956), Jean  Pepin,
 judeo-chretiennes  (1958),  a  range  of  works
from   the 1930s to the 1960s by Pierre Courcelle, among them 'Les
peres
  de
  and  La  Consolation
  Jeauneau  (later collected in his
'Lectio
tegumentum a  travers  les gloses de  Guillaume  de  Conches'  (1957),
 Jean
  The  Eighteenth
Century  C o n f r o n t s  th e
  Gods  (1959).
overviews included Erich Auerbach,
  Church Fathers  (1956),  Jean  Danielou,
Sacramentum futuri:  Etudes sur les origines  de la  t y p o l o g i e  biblique  (1950), Henri
de  Lubac,  Exegese medievale  (1959-64), Beryl Smalley,  The  Study  of the
Bible  in the M iddle Ages  (1940),  M.-D. Chenu,
  La  t h e o l o g i e  au douzieme  siecle
(1957), A.C. Charity,  Events  a d  Their  A f t e r l i f e
  (1966),  Gerhard Ebeling,
 Luthers Hermeneutik'
 
  1 (ii)  A  RETROSPECTIVE  FORWARD  9
o f  the B ible  (1965), and James  M. Robinson and John  B.
  Cobb,
  Jr.,
On  allegory  in
 and  Islamic interpretation, important studies
included Harry  A u s tr y n  Wolfson,  Philo  (1947) ,  I s a a k  Heinemann,
'Altjiidische
Hebrew), and  'Die
  wissenschaftliche  Allegoristik des jiidischen Mittel-
alters'  ( 1 9 5 0 — 1 ) ,  Ignaz Goldziher,  Die  Richtungen  der
  islamischen Koran-
auslegung  (1920), Henry Corbin,  Avicenne  et  l e  r e c i t  visionnaire  (1952—4)  an d
Histoire  d e  la  philosophic
  islamique  (1964),  George  F.  Hourani's intro-
duction  to  Averroes:  On the  Harmony  of  Religion  and  Philosophy  (1961),
Julius Guttmann,
  D ie  Philosophic  des Judentums  (1933) ,  L eo  Strauss,
'The Literary  Character  of the  Guide for the P erplexed'  (1941),
  Shlomo
Pines's  introduction  to his  translation  of  The  Guide  of the  Perplexed
(1963),  and  Gershom  G .  Scholem,  Major Trends  in
  Jewish  Mysticism
  and  'The Meaning of the  Torah  in Jewish Mysticism'  (1956).
Finally, on critical theories of allegory, valuable discussions included
Reinhart  Hahn,  Die  Allegorie  in der  antiken  Rhetorik  (1967) ,  Friedrich
Ohly,  'Vom geistigen Sinn des Wortes  im Mittelalter' (1958-9), Johan
Ghydenius,  The  Theory
gomery, Jr., 'Allegory  and the  Incredible Fable:  The  Italian View
from   Dante
Ursprung   des  deutschen Trauerspiels  (1928) ,  Rene Wellek,  A  History  of
Modern Criticism: 1750-1950,  vols.  1-2  (1955),  Hans-Georg Gadamer,
Wahrheit
  und M ethode  (1960), Northrop  Frye,  Anatomy of  Criticism  (1957),
an d  Angus Fletcher,  Allegory:
  The
  Theory
  Symbolic Mode  (1964).
It should be stressed that many other important studies of these
subjects  were available  by  1967, including works by J.  Tate,  Hugo
Rahner, Simone Viarre,  Erwin  P a n o f s k y ,  C. Spicq, R.P.G. Hanson,
Herman Hailperin, Edmund Stein, Richard McKeon, Karl Giehlow,
and a host of others. The  list above only suggests some of the studies
that  f r a m e d  the  study of  allegorical interpretation over  a  generation
ago. Drawing upon such studies, an  outline  in the mid-1960s  might
have proceeded along something like  the  following lines.
1. Allegorical interpretation begins in Greek antiquity with the
philosophic
  interpretation
  during  the  sixth
and fifth centuries B.C.E. Interpretation  of  this kind aims  to  give  a
'scientific'  or  'ethical'  rationale  to  mythological stories.  With  Stoic
analysis  of the
  Hellenistic period, ranging
Chrysippus
cal interpretation develops into a sweeping   t ransformation  of mytho-
logical
  figures
  moral principles.
  B y
  late antiquity,
N eoplatonic interpreters such   as  Porphyry  and  Proclus  are  giving  a
more 'spiritualized'
  or 'mystical'
  mythological texts, treat-
ing them as accounts of the passage of the soul through   different
levels
  of the  cosmos.
2.  A lready  in the  H ellenistic period, G reek allegorical m ethods
are  adapted  to the  exegesis  of  Jewish S cripture  by  philosophically
inclined,  H ellenized Jews,  especially
  Philo
 cen tury C .E .). More program m atically philosophic
than midrashic  forms  of  interpretation developing  in the  L a n d  of
Israel,
  are in
  turn adapted
  to the
  C hristian
Bible, especially  by the 'esoteric'  comm entators C lement  and  Origen
(second  -  third centuries C.E.) of the  A lexandrian school.  In
  more
diffused  forms,  such strategies  are  employed  by  late an tique C hristians
at
  large,
ical
  techniques
  of
  literal
  and
historical sense of texts or phe nom ena , C hristians as early as P aul pro-
mote a kind of interpretive
  transfer
  that preserv es the literal sense in
the special case of sacred Scripture. In such   'figural'  or  'typological'
interpretation, even
(a s  well
  Testament)
  are
treated as historical and foundational. In contrast to the school of
A lexandria,  the  late antique school  of  A ntioch stresses this typolog-
ical
  informs
opm ent of C hristian scriptural exegesis.
3. In  late antiquity  and the  Middle A ges, such overlapping strains
of  interpretat ion are consolidated by C hrist ians such as C assian,
Gregory
  the
  later interpreters into 'multilevel' meth-
ods of  scriptural exegesis.  In one of the  most popular  of  these sys-
tems, the
  like
  to the
  Promised Land;
  2)  'alle-
gorically'  (with  special reference to the typological  fulfillment  of 'Old'
Testament
soul
  to
 
even
  pagan mythol-
ogy, arguing (along  th e  lines  of the  ant ique in terpreter Euhemerus)
that imaginative
  historical  facts
about hu m an beings. More broadly, by adap ting N eoplatonic notions
of  cosmic hierarchy
  from  th e  P seudo-D ionysius  (turn  of the fifth and
sixth
natura l
level  cosmos.
4. The  movement toward mystical  or  philosophic 'levels'  of  inter-
pretation also develops, more controversially,  in  medieval Islamic
t r e a t m e n t s  of the
  K o r a n
  an d
  of
H ebrew S cripture. In Islam, early   efforts  to construe  forms  of ' inner
meaning'  ( b a t i r i )  in
  K oranic passages
tigation with  the  reader's  inner progression  of  consciousness em erge
in
  several interpretive settings, including  'non-orthodox,'  Shiite cir-
cles,  and  continue long  after  the  Middle Ages.  More  strictly  'philo-
sophic'  interpretations
  of the
  in the
their
  late
  twelfth
A ristotelian comm entator A verroes.  In Judaism,  allegorical exegesis,
promoted especia l ly
  by the  twelfth-  an d
  e a r ly t h i r te e n t h - c e n t u r y
philosopher Maimonides  and his  immediate followers, circulates exten-
sively  during  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries; among many
commentators during  the  same period, however, this kind  of  analy-
sis
  as an
  of
K abbalistic exegesis. S uch K abbalistic  systems  finally  stress  not the
expositions of philosophy, but the intuition of divine   life  in the very
words and  letters  of the  scriptural text.
5. By the
  late Middle A ges, C hristians increasingly sense tha t
despite  their invocation  of the  scriptural  historia,  their  ow n multilevel
method tends  to  break  the  biblical narrative into isolated passages of
schematic   analysis. C oun tering this tendency  are a  n u m b e r  of C hristian
scholastics
  from
  to the fourteenth centuries, including
A n d r e w   of S t . V ictor and N icholas of L yra. D rawing upon Jewish
exegesis  of
  scriptural history
  of
  ambiva-
lent
  language, this late medieval scholastic movement gradually  re-
directs interest  to the  historical continuities  of the  literal sense. Within
the late m edieval Jewish com m unity, even the most w ide-ranging
philosophic
  or
  a
  denial
12  JON  W H I T M A N
literal sense of biblical history or the legal specifications of Scripture,
and during  this  period and long
  after
  it the study of Jewish  law
( h a l a k h a K )   remains central  to  Jew ish intellectual  and  institutional  life.
6. Late  medieval  Christian  concerns
  about
  the
  allegorization
  of
Scripture anticipate sixteenth- and seventeenth-century critiques in the
P rotestant R eforma tion. R eformers such as L uther broadly repudiate
'allegory'  according  to the  fourfold  method  and  invoke  a  'simple'  or
'literal'  sense  of C hristian S cripture, the spiritual dime nsions of w hich
become increasingly clear over time.  From  this perspective, typo-
logical  significance itself  belongs to a single meaning that develops
over the continuum of history.
7. A llegorical interpre tation co ntinue s to
  flourish
century  mythographic
displaying
  and
th e
  enigmatic pictograms
  of
emblems. Even in the treatment of non-sacred texts and images, how-
ever, counterstrains  are developing. The  sixteenth-century hum anist
revival  of  A ristotle's  Poetics  increasingly inclines critical theorists  to
seek  th e
  not in  'allegory,'
but in  'credibility, '  and related concepts of the conventions of rep-
resentation tend to
  N eoplatonic em phases on iconic m ystery.
Efforts  in the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth centuries  to  specify  the ancient
origins of myths, either by Euhemerist methods or by the argument
that H ebrew S cripture is the source of pagan  stories, gradually encour-
age  an  early 'historicist' approach  to  mythology.
8. By the
  is
  increasingly
  'historical-
critical'  inv estigation of the text's origins and dev elopm ent. A t times
such  investigations tend to consign biblical stories to the realm of
early mythological expression.
toricist' and
  comparative analysis
  in the
and later critics who  seek  to  codify  the linguistic, anthropological,
and
  social
  literary theory , N eoclassical
norms of clarity and propriety tend to reduce mythological  allusions
and
  'allegorical'
  ornaments
 
Ch. 1  (ii)  A  R E T R O S P E C T I V E FO R W A R D  1 3
9. The  growing critique  of  allegory since  th e  late medieval period
becomes particularly sharp
allegorical exposition
  as the historical-critical method
expands  in  range  and  influence.  From  a  different  perspective,  a  more
general 'hermeneutics' promoted
  others treats
unders tanding  itself  not as the specification of a text's  'point'  but as
th e
  from
which the text emerges. In R om antic l iterary theory , critics such as
G oethe and C oleridge devalue the very term   'allegory,'  applying it
to a schem atic, even arbitrary techn ique of signification. B y contrast ,
they
  argue ,
  a
  that  it
evokes;  it is not  displaced  by  w h a t  it  reveals. Similar attitudes  inform
th e
  figure is  itself
inseparable  from  its  overall significance;  to  allegorize  it is to  violate
its  integrity.
10.  Though  such nineteenth-century views continue well into  th e
twentieth
  and
practical designs. Shortly   after  the formulation of one of the pro-
grams issuing  from  various  'historical'  and 'hermeneutical ' investi-
gations  of  C hristian S cripture, B ultm ann's proposal  to 'demythologize'
scriptural narrat ive , some commentators are suggesting that such
'demythologization'  resembles ancien t A lexandrian  allegorization. In
critical theory, R om antic notions of the abiding spiritual value of the
'symbol'  come under  forceful  attack
  by
  w ho
  counters that
'allegory'  exposes the very historical process which disrupts any such
effort  to
  un ite ephem eral objects w ith eternal ideas. B enjam in's cri-
tique, however, does not circulate widely until considerably   after  th e
middle  of the  twentieth century.  More  broadly, drawing upon  the
psychological  and  anthropological theories  of Freud,
 Jung,  and  Frazer,
  theorists  frequently  turn  'symbols'  and  'myths '  themselves into
hidden, explanatory structures underlying texts ,   a  tendency  regarded
by som e critics as too close to allegorization. C ertain theorists invo k-
ing such latent s tructures , including N orthrop  Frye  (1957)  and Angus
Fletcher  (1964),  argue that  'all'  commentary
  is in
  this composite overview),
it  is  unclear  to  what degree this claim will  be  accepted. D espite  th e
apparent devaluation of  'allegory'  for centuries, by this date the very
destiny  of both  the  term  and the  kinds  of  transfer
  that  are  assigned
14 JON  W H I T M A N
A dm ittedly, any  effort  to reduce 2500 years of interpretive activ-
ity
  enterprise
  as
trying to reduce the regulations of the Bible to ten commandments.
It would be possible of course to include other distinctions and devel-
opments ,  to  vary  the  emphases  and  nuances, and, more broadly,  to
reconceive the general structure of the analysis. My concern at the
moment, however, is not that this outline, projected  'backward'  to
1967, is too  sketchy,  but  that  it is too  'developed, '  to o  smoothly
  au
courant,  with too m uch of the prese nt projected into i t. (A s one
'hermeneutic' claim   has it,  such  is the  inevitable Tore-understand-
ing'  by  which  contemporary
hard  to find a  study  of  allegorical interpretation that concentrated
on  more
  historical
  'periods'
  antiquity
  and
th e  Middle  Ages);  that sustained a systematic comp arison am ong dif-
ferent  'spheres'
graphic writing,  and  critical theory; that devoted even  one  chapter
out of ten to medieval Jew ish and Islamic dev elopm ents  (unless  th
study concentrated on one of those   subjects,  in which case the prob-
lem would have been reversed);
  or
ory of the  'symbol'  as considerably  less  revolutionary than  'evolutionary.'
The need to construct  this  general outline
  'retrospectively'  itself  sug-
This
  is not to say that these problems have been resolved in the
current generat ion.  O n t h e  contrary,  as I  have suggested,  funda-
mental  difficulties  in coordinating and comparing the diverse devel-
opments
  of
  allegorical interpretation  still  (perhaps necessarily) mark
contem porary scholarship. N or is i t to say that the basic organ iza-
tion of  this  retrospective outline has been largely superseded. In  fact,
a considerable part of its design remains
  'normative'
 explicit
ar rangement of previous in terpre t ive movements , but in i t s own
implicit attitudes toward them. In most of the critical works on alle-
gorical interpretation  reflected  in  this  outline, allegory is an intrigu-
in g  subject  of historic importance and a fascinating topic of scholarly
investigation,  but a  rather strained, even arbitrary approach  to  tex-
tual  understanding.
work  of writers   de Lubac committed to certain institutional devel-
opments
  to
  argue
  for
latent s truc ture s in texts at large (though ev en Frye, as I suggest
below, is perhaps not as accommodating to
  'allegory'
  RETROSPECTIVE FORWARD
  1 5
seem).  B u t i n  general scholarship several decades  ag o  treats  n ot  just
allegorical composition,  but  allegorical interpretation  itself,  as a kind
of  alieniloquium,  a  somewhat  'alien'  form  of  discourse.  A t  times  th e
critical expression  of  this attitude  is far  more conspicuous than  it is
in  this outline. Allegorical interpretation,  it is
  often  maintained  or
  'abstract'
  in
conception;  it  tends  to  'close'  th e  range  of  interpretive possibilities;
it  is  'ahistorical'  in  orientation.  I t may not be a  'harlot'  or a
  'weed,'
  'skillful'  state  of  scholarship,  how  'sane'  would  it be to
apply  it to the  present?
iii. Passages
  to the
In the  last  few  decades, however, something  of the  'alien'
  seems  to
have passed  out of the  alieniloquium.  For an  increasing number  of
critics theorizing about encounters with  'other'  texts and  times,  'other-
speaking'  seems  to  speak their language.  To try to  'explain'
  this
change  in  attitude would  be  like  trying  to  'explain'  historical change
as  a  whole.  B ut  there  are  ways  to  situate  the  change, which,  like
every  development  in the  interpretation  of interpretation,  is  likely  to
change  in  turn.
It can be  argued,  for  example, that general notions about alle-
gorical interpretation  like  those just  indicated—the  notions  of  alle-
gory
 as  'imposed,' 'abstract,' 'closed,' and 'ahistorical'—have  changed
with  the  transformation  of  critical attitudes  at  large since  th e  late
1960s.
1 4
  T o  many, allegory  no  longer seems  so  peculiar  a  form  of
'imposition' when
'hermeneutics'  to  'reader  response '  criticism argue that readers  at
large regularly  'intervene'  in the  texts they  engage.
1 5
common  to  associate allegory with  'abstraction,'  the  association  has
been complicated  by the  argument that every  form  of  discourse  is
'figured'
  features
1 6
  If for  some allegory remains
a  means  of  interpretive  'closure, '  for  others  it is a way of  opening
14
  Compare
 below.
15
  For  examples  of how  such movements have  affected  attitudes toward allegory,
see Crossan
  Copeland
  Lang
  are a  major  inf luence  upon such studies.
 
1 7
  While  it is  still
often  argued that allegory is a  form  of  'dehistoricization,'  some have
suggested that 'historicization' has its own allegorical tendencies, cor-
relating texts with
  ideology
alien than interpretation
  at
  large.
A t ti tudes  toward allegory over  a  generation ago, however, have
changed not only with
intensive   from
  parts
of  this  v o l u m e — ' P r e s e n t  P erspectives: A ntiquity to the L ate Middle
A ges' (chapter
  Period'  (chapter  1 2 ) — I  discuss some of the implica-
tions of
  recent research
  of
m ythology to contem pora ry theories of signification. T he distinct sec-
tions of
  to the
  subjects  treated
individually by the contributors to this volume. For the moment, in
closing
some of the questions implied by one particularly prominent expres-
sion of
  at
  large.
This
  is the view that  'all'  com m entary or interpretation is basi-
cally  'allegorical.'
appeared  among scholars belonging to an array of  different  'schools'
and working on a range of  different  periods and fields—antiquity
(e.g.,  A .A . L ong); the M iddle A ges  (e.g., Morton  W .  Bloomfield);  th e
R enaissance (e.g., A ngus Fletcher
  and
  and
  con-
temporary theory (e.g., Fredric Jameson  and  G e r a l d  L .  B r u n s )
1 9
— to
give  only a partial  list  of  influential  writers. This  broad  application
of  the term  'allegorical'  still  does not dominate scholarly practice as
a
pretive procedures,  from  grammatical notes on an ancient text to
historical background   for a  modern novel .  For  some  (like  myself),
1 7
  S ee  Bloomfield  1972; B runs 1987, pp.  640-2;  and B runs 1992, pp. 85-6.
18
  Fo r  suggestions  of  this kind  from  different  perspectives about diverse acts  of
'historicization, '
1 9
  S ee  L o n g 1 9 9 2 ,  p. 43;
  Bloomfield  1 9 7 2 ,  p.  3 0 1 ,  n. 1;  Fletcher 1964,  p. 8;
Quilligan  1979,  pp.
  15-16; Jameson  1981 ,  pp. 10 , 58;  B r u n s 1 9 9 2 ,  pp. 15,  85-6,
 
C h . 1 (iii) A R E T R O S P E C T I V E FO R W A R D   17
the recent expansive use of the term   'allegorical'  is deeply ques-
tionable
  position has its own history, and that his-
tory displays some of the deepest ironies in the interpretation of
interpretation.
T he
  m o s t p r o m i n e n t
  and
that
  a
seemed strange to allegorists as diverse in intellectual and spiritual
orientation as  Philo,  H eraclitus the A llegorizer, C lement of A lexandria,
Origen,
  Gregory  the
G r ea t, B e de ,  Raban  M a u r , A r n u l f  of  O r le an s, H u g h  of St .  V ictor ,
William of C onches, and P ierre B ersuire in the M iddle A ges; and
B occaccio, L andino, P etrus L avinius , N atale C onti, G iovanni  Fabrini,
and John Harington
  in the  Renaissance.
  th e
  apparent  sense  is
  called  'literal,'  'historical, '
'external , '  or something else. This is not to say that the character
of  this
  sense  is  identical  fo r  such writers;  on the  contrary,
there
sense.
22
In  fact,  one of the  most revealing aspects  of the  history  of
allegory
so  that what  is  considered
  'other'
  than  it  changes  in  t u r n .  But for
most of that history interpreters agree that it is one thing to explain
th e  'apparent'  sense  of a text, another to explain its  'allegorical'  one.
While complications
  of
20
  1993a,
21
  Allen
  notion
  and
  1986;  Childs  1 9 7 7 ;  Burrow  1984;  Kermode  1986;
  Tanner
  and
  1986;  Childs  1 9 7 7 ;  Burrow  1984;  Kermode  1986;
  Tanner
1987;  Copeland  1993;  Greene-McCreight  1999;  my remarks and  references  below
in  chapter 2  (viii);  and  AJ.  Minnis's  essay  with  bibliography  in  chapter  1 1  of  this
volume.
Scripture.
increasingly tends to include senses once called  'allegorical'  within  the
'literal'  sense  itself,  treated as the  'basic,'  'normative'  Christian sense
of  the text. Thus, for Nicholas of Lyra in the fourteenth century, a
passage  in  Chronicles  is  said 'literally'
  (ad litterani)  of Christ.  For James
Perez of Valencia in the  f if teenth  century, a psalm is explained  'alle-
gorically'  ( a l l e g o r i c e ]  about Christ,
  or to
  litteraliter}.  For  Martin Luther  in the  sixteenth century,  the
complaint  in a  psalm  is  'literally'  (ad litterani)  a  complaint  of Christ.
23
For William Perkins in the seventeenth century, expressing what by
his  time
  is a
of  'every
  place of
24
  To
movements  of  this kind  increase  interpretive sensitivity  to the  'literal'
sense
  dis-
place the  term  'allegory'  while assigning the  'literal'  sense a limitless
'spiritual'
  scope.
significance
  'language,
  as a mere  thing of the
letter,  binds up the spirit' as well. A variety of Romantic theorists
tend to apply the term
  'symbol'
self-contained  quality, while relegating the term  'allegorical'  to works
that
  signify
selves. For
  'symbol'
not
  but
  tautegorical,
2 3
 expression, the significance attributed to the  'symbol'  tends
to  shift  from  spiritual to more general notions of  'meaning,'  and the-
2 3
  See Preus  1969, pp.  68-9, 105, 146. Compare  the  essay  of AJ.  Minnis in  this
volume.  Preus's argument that Luther gradually develops a stronger association
between the  'literal'  or 'historical'  sense  and the  'Old  Testament  situation' (p. 170)
does
  historical point here  that  'Christ' remains
the  reference  point  of  e v e n  this  'situated'  'literal'  sense;  see Preus, pp.  179-80.
24
  S e e L e w a l s k i  1977, p. 81.
  S e e L e w a l s k i  1977, p. 81.
23
  For  these
  developments, see Todorov 1982 (prior version  1 9 7 7 ) ,  pp. 147-221,
e s p .
  pp. 190 and  209,  and  Whitman  1 9 9 1 ,  p.  168,  w i t h  the  bibliography on pp.
175-6, nn.  24-5.
 
Ch. 1   (iii)  A  R E T R O S P E C T I V E  F O R W A R D   1 9
orists
  develop an expansive vocabulary to describe how works of art
evoke  such meaning,  from  th e
  'sensuous
like  G assirer
26
  By contrast , the term  'allegory'
refers  to the  language  of  designation w hereby images  are  translated
into concepts.
T he  m u c h - c i t e d c o m m e n t  by  N o r th r o p  Frye  in his  Anatomy
  o f
Criticism  that 'a l l commentary  is  allegorical interpretation,  an  attach-
ing of  ideas  to the  structure  of  poetic
  imagery, '
2 7
  N ea r the start of this dis-
cussion,  he writes that the principle that a l i terary work contains
  'a
variety  or  sequence  of  meanings'  has  seldom  been 'squarely  faced'
in   criticism since  th e  Middle A ges, with  its  fourfold  'scheme'  of  mean-
ings  (p. 7 2). B ut certain aspects of the m edieval  approach  need to
be
  revised
  for
  th e  'con-
ception of l i teral meaning as simple descriptive meaning will not do
at all for  literary
  (p.  76).  A  poem  'cannot  be  literally any-
thing  but a  poem'  (p.  7 7 ) ;  its  m e a n i n g  is  'literally'  its  'pattern  or
integrity
  state
or  point  to  anything, but ,  by  pointing  to  each other, they suggest
or  evoke  th e mood
  which informs  th e poem'  (p.  81). Explicitly invok-
in g
  the  'new  criticism,'  he  argues that  he has now 'established a
new
  sense
and
  Frye's
  note  to 1 . 2).  C o m m e n t a r y ,  he  continues,  is
  'the
  process
of  translating into explicit  or  discursive language w hat  is  implicit  in
th e  poem'  (p. 86). A t last com es the influential statem en t: it is  'not
often
  realized tha t all com m en tary is allegorical in terpre tation . . . '
(p .  89).  T o
  it was
written, in the  context  not  only  of  Frye's larger discussion,  but of
hundreds of years of  shifting  approaches to the  'literal'  and  'alle-
gorical'  senses,  is  perhaps  to  suggest somewhat  different  considera-
tions  that may be  'not  often
  realized.'
  of the term
  'literal  m e a n i n g '  is not quite
as  new as it
  more develop-
m e n t  in the  radical  fluctuation of the  'literal'
  sense since  th e  Middle
2 (
  S e e , e.g.,  C assirer 19 71 (prior version 1944) and,  among  a host  of'New Critical'
  S e e , e.g.,  C assirer 19 71 (prior version 1944) and,  among  a host  of'New Critical'
discussions,
'
2
'  S ee Frye 1957, p. 89; see pp.  71-128  for the  larger  discussion. Compare  Frye
 
20 JON  W H I T M A N
Ages.  In the R eformation, an interpreter t reating w hat was once
considered  allegorical  as a  condition  of the  'literal'  sense might claim
that there is nothing
  that normative sense. In the R om antic
period, a theorist treating the idea as a dimension of the image might
claim
  Frye's argu-
  he
  R om antic theory that underl ies such criticism.
Y et  Frye's  'literal'  sense  is at  once  more  constricted  to  words  than
the Romant ic  'symbol'  and at the same time more open to inter-
pretation.
  to
  treat
th e  'allegorical'  as a  kind  of  literature contrasted with 'symbolic' writ-
ing,  Frye  treats
  c o m m e n t a r y
  on
  litera-
ture,
 T he  'allegorical'
act that had once been secondary to works of  'imagination'  devel-
ops  into  the  primary source  of the  autonomy  of  'criticism.'  It is no
wonder that for Frye  'all'  commentary is 'allegorical';  the only  'appar-
ent'  sense  is as it  were  a  transcript  of the  text.  A   poem  'cannot  be
literally
  anything
  the
'literal' sense to the words of the poem, he treats the  'allegorical'  as
anything else that
speaking   'otherwise'  that had developed  from  the late Middle Ages
and the  Reformation  to the  Romant ic  period  turns into  a popular-
ization of speaking 'otherw ise' in the m ode rn p eriod. A nd the m ore
th e  'integrity'  of  'verbal
  structure '
  to
  itself  chal-
lenged in this period,  the more  'allegory'  turns into a way not only
to com m ent u po n the text, but to cons truct i t.
T h e s e  reflections  about a contemporary cri t ical argument do not
'prove'  or  'disprove'  the
  argument. They rather suggest
  critical
importance of situating the very definitions of terms like  'literal'  and
'allegorical'  in the
  polemical con-
ditions.  T o analyze such con ditions systematically it wou ld be nec -
essary
  to
  antiquity  to the  modern period. Such  an  analy-
sis  would need  to  assess  th e  far-reaching historical changes—linguistic,
imaginative, ideological,  institutional—that  promote or constrain the
realignment  of  specific  texts with  shifting  interpretive communities.
Questions central  to  such  an  investigation would include  the  follow-
ing:
  B y
  w ha t criteria (for exam ple, gram m atical, generic, doctrinal ,
social)
 
  A  RETROSPECTIVE  F O R W A R D  21
given text? Insofar as a community accepts the  'literal'  sense, what
forms  (for example, intellectual assent,
  ritual
ation)  does its acceptance take? In the process of  'allegorization,'
which dimensions  of a  text  are  selected  or  rejected, foregrounded  or
backgrounded,
  and
  text resist such allegoriza-
tion? At what point does an allegorization become so radical that it
breaks down
pretive community? Given  the  tendency  for allegorized  texts  to  remain
canonical while allegorical  interpretations  pass  out of  currency, what
continuities
  of
  idiom
  and
ning
 of
recent years, like the  festschrift  for Friedrich  Ohly  edited by  Hans
Fromm, Wolfgang  Harms,
  and Uwe  Ruberg,  Verbum  et Signum  ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,
the  collection  of essays edited  by Walter  Haug  in  Formen und F unktionen
der Allegorie  (1979) ,  the  conceptual  and  bibliographical survey in  Hennig
Brinkmann's  Mittelalterliche Hermeneutik  (1980),  and  Jean
  Pepin's  ret-
  anthology  in  La  tradition  de  I'allegorie  de Philon  d'Alexandrie  a
Dante  ( 1 9 8 7 ) ,  at
  times tend  less  to
  this kind than
to provide rich scholarly resources with which to conduct such an
investigation.
28
  Nor would the investigation itself be likely to yield a
semiotic  'model'  of
differences  not only in the historical settings in which interpretation
takes place,
In any
  a
model, much  less  a 'history' of  interpretation  and  allegory during  a
period of over two thousand years. Investigating major interpretive
turning points in  differing  but overlapping cultures, it aims rather to
provide a set of case studies of interacting critical drives and their
relation
  to
ments it  examines include primal  f o r m s
  of  mythology, conceived  in
texts  sacred respectively to Judaism,  Christianity, and Islam; and crit-
ical categories of visual and verbal art, among them the hieroglyph,
the emblem, the symbol, and irony. The tensions discussed in the
See,  e.g.,
  th e
nent interpretive schools, among them
  Philo and  Origen,
  R .
  Akiva
  a n d R .  Ishmael , Porphyry  and  P roclus , A vicenna
an d
  A verroes , Maimonides
  and  Rashba,  N a h m a n id e s an d  A bulafia ,
A belard   and  William  of  C o n c h e s , B o n a v e n t u r e  and  N icholas  of  Lyra ,
D a n t e  and  B occaccio, A lciato  and  V aleriano,  Bacon  and  V ico, G oethe
and   S chlegel, B enjam in  and  Freud,  de Man and  Jameson,  and a
host of
the margins of individual texts; they concern the intellectual , com-
m un al, and spiritual com plexions of diverse civilizations.
T he  volume  has  developed  from  a  cooperative project based  n
Jerusalem
  with contributions  of  scholars  from  a  n u m b e r  of  different
countries  and  disciplines.  T he  academic specialties  of  these contrib-
utors  range  from  ancient and m ode rn literatures to com parative reli-
gion,
  rt
  history,
  and overlap in their theoret ical
assumptions and practical attitudes. I t is hoped  that the  differences,
no  less  than the agreements,
  will
how earlier interpreters,  from  other places and times, have under-
stood
  the
  works
  and
  of the
such  comparisons and contrasts.
It is easy enough to imagine other analyses or alternative struc-
tures for a
  study might  well  devote greater
attention, for example, to a number of  subjects  of allegorical inter-
pretation
  in
gorical procedures  (e.g.,
imaginative   forms  that overlap with interpretive allegory  (e.g.,  th e
parable);
31
  More gen-
erally,  such a study might include other categories of inquiry, or
proceed along   different  theoretical lines,
  or
  continue
29
  For overviews,  see, e.g.,  Brinkmann  1980  and  Ladner  1995 (prior version  1992).
30
  1975.
  1975.
31
  See, e.g. ,  Klauck  1986 (prior  version  1978);  Stern  1 9 9 1 ;  Wailes  1987.
32
  See, e.g. ,  Miner  1 9 7 7 ;  L e w a l s k i  1 9 7 9 ;  Frei  1 9 7 4 ; P r i c k e t t 1 9 9 1 ;  Bercovitch
1 9 7 2 .
 
C h . 1   (iii)  A  R E T R O S P E C T I V E FO R W A R D   23
with the  reflection—to  adapt the phrase of another w riter— that in
this  work
thing more, there would not be any room for   it.'
33
For the history of allegorical interpretation has a way of both fas-
cinating and eluding its interpreters, whether they try to keep their
distance
  from
  is it allegory?—
has taken i ts revenge upon the very L uther w ho proclaim ed his inde-
p e n d e n c e  from  'allegorical'  interpretat ion and his commitment to
one 'literal'
  been observed that contemporary scholar-
ship  seeking  the meaning of Luther 's work has  found  more than one
'Luther'—the  figure
34
L u t h e r  m ight hav e responded that he was not a character in C hristian
Scripture ,
  but
  would
  he
  this apparent division
of  his  ' l iteral' sense?  I t  will  be  protested,  of  course, that this  is not
'allegory,' not the
  in a
  golden shower
  can be
  interpreted
in
  the R enaissance as the w inning of a wom an with
  money.
35
of  students that
  Hamlet  is a  d r a m a  of  O edipal frustrat ion  and  Paradise
Lost  an  epic  of  incipient capitalism.
A n  ' insane'  activity,  th e  ' refuge  of  unskillfulness,'  that Protestant
scholar in the seventeenth century called a range of allegorical inter-
pretation, in a comment cited at the beginning of this
  essay.
  In ret-
rospect, perha ps he was not com pletely right. B ut even if he was,
perhaps  one way for  future  interpreters  to  keep their san ity w ould
be to deepen the study of that activity. I t is hoped that the present
study  will  be a
33
  See the quotation  from  Macedonio  Fernandez in Eco  1992,  p. 40; I have  sub-
stituted  the word  'work'  for the original word 'world.'
34
33
  b y  Sinfield  1984,
  1 2 7 ; c o m -
 
 
WORKS CITED
This  is a  list  of works  specifically  cited in the essay, not a general bibliography.
With  regard  to  early sources,  the  list includes only works cited  in  specific  printings
  Philo's  De  Plantations  in the translation of Colson and Whitaker), not works
more broadly designated (e.g., Virgil's  Aeneid}.
In  this list  and in the  essay itself,  the  citation  of a  'prior  version'
  of a  book  or
an article is an attempt to indicate the date of its earliest (or at least an important
earlier) edition or publication, despite  differences  between initial and later  f o r m s  of
publication.  If the  work  is  translated,  such  a  citation refers  to the  date  of its  ear-
liest
  publication
  the
date of the  'prior  version' of Auerbach's  '"Figura"'  in German is not 1944 (the
often-cited
  date  of its  appearance  in  Neue  Dantestudien),  but 1938 (the  date  of its
appearance  in  Archivum
  Romanicum].
Since even  the  earliest  'edition'  of a  work  may  include material previously pub-
lished in another form, the citation of a work (including a  'prior version'), of course,
does not necessarily indicate  the date when  a particular argument  'originally'  appears.
Thus, though  th e  'prior  version'  of  Chenu's  Nature,  M a n ,  and  Society  in the  Twelfth
Century
  (1968)  is the  1957 French work  on  which  th e  English translation  is  based,
the French work itself includes material  from  several previous articles by  Chenu.
To try to  specify  the  'original'  form  of a  scholarly argument leads potentially  to a
nearly  infinite  regress; the publication dates in this  list  only demarcate important
stages  in the  public presentation  of  such arguments.
Normally,  'prior  versions' are cited only for scholarly studies of recent genera-
tions,  n o t  for
  early primary sources that
cation  by  centuries.
In the designation of a study in a number of a series for which the copyright
date  differs  by no more than one year  from  the  'official'  year of the series num-
ber,  the  only  year  cited  is the  'official'  one.
In the citation of multiple studies by a single author, each entry is preceded by
a brief code with the last name of the author (or a line indicating the repetition
of
  that
  of the  work  (in the  most recent  'edition'  specified  in
the  full  citation); such entries are arranged according to the order of those dates
(e.g.,  Scholem 1954;  1965).
Allen,  D on  Cameron.
Interpretation
Scenes
 from  th e Drama  of  European  Literature. Erich Auerbach. 1959. Gloucester, Mass.,
1973.  11-76.
A u z z a s ,  Ginetta,  et  al.,  eds/
  Le  imagini  de i dei de gli  antichi.  B y  Vincenzo Cartari.
Vicenza,
  1996.
  The
  Origin
  of
  des
deutschen  Trauerspiels,  1928.] Trans. John  Osborne. London, 1977.
Bercovitch, Sacvan,  ed.  T y p o l o g y  and  Early American Literature.
 Amherst, Mass., 1972.
Bloomfield ,  Morton  W .  'Allegory  as  Interpretation.'  N ew  Literary History  3  (1972):
301-17.
 Bruns, Gerald
  WHITMAN
Questions  and  Prospects.  E d .  Gary Shapiro  and  Alan Sica. Amherst, Mass., 1984.
147-64.
1987  =  B r u n s ,  Gerald  L.  'Midrash  and  Allegory: The  Beginnings of Scriptural
Interpretation.'  T he Literary Guide  to the B ible.  E d.  Robert Alter  and  Frank Kermode.
Cambridge, Mass., 1987. 625-46.
  Hermeneutics Ancient  and Modern.
  N ew  Haven, 1992.
Buff iere ,  Felix.  Les
Burrow, J.A. 'Allegory:  T he  Literal Level.'  Essays
  o n
192-212.
Cascardi, Anthony J., ed.  Literature and the Q uestion of Philosophy.
  1987. Baltimore, 1989.
Cassirer, Ernst.  'Art.'  [Prior  version  in  An  Essay  o n M a n ,  1944.]  Critical  Theory  Since
Plato.  Ed. Hazard Adams. San Di