A MOSAIC OF ARTS: INTERTEXTUALITY IN MARIANNE MOORE’S POETIC AESTHETICS

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 26, 278 - 290, 16.10.2025

Münevver Yakude Muştak

https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.1676568

Öz

Marianne Moore’s poetry is famous for its complex blending of literary, artistic, and cultural references, resulting in her poetry being a detailed work of art of intertextuality. This paper dives into Moore’s poetic style as a dynamic mosaic, where various elements from various sources, such as literature, visual arts, philosophy, and scientific discourse, combine to generate new meanings. Drawing on the theories of intertextuality, particularly those of Julia Kristeva, this study examines how Moore’s use of quotation, adaptation, and allusion challenges conventional ideas of originality and authorship. Moore’s artistry, that is, her creative skill and talent in writing poetry, and attention to structure, are grounded in the fusion of the modernist and postmodernist aesthetics, where the interaction of texts leads to layered interpretations. By studying her selected poems, this paper argues that Moore’s intertextual approach not only deepens her poetic vision but also invites readers to actively connect to the dialogical nature of art. This active participation uncoils conversations between texts, where the reworking of older voices and traditions becomes a powerful method for generating new meanings. In doing so, Moore redefines the limits of modernist poetic expression, transforming borrowed voices and references into something innovative, complex, and uniquely her own, creating a space where multiple ideas can coexist and enrich one another. In conclusion, this study aims to identify and analyze the intertextual elements in Moore’s selected poems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

American Poetry , Intertextuality , Julia Kristeva , Marianne Moore

Teşekkür

I am deeply grateful to Assoc. Prof. Yiğit Sümbül, whose intellectual generosity and guidance during the poetry courses proved invaluable.

Sanatsal Bir Mozaik: Marianne Moore’un Şiirsel Estetiğinde Metinlerarasılık

Öz

Marianne Moore’un şiiri, edebi, sanatsal ve kültürel referansların karmaşık bir şekilde harmanlanmasıyla tanınır ve bu da eserlerinin metinlerarasılık açısından detaylı sanat eserleri olmasına olanak tanır. Bu makale, Moore’un edebiyat, görsel sanatlar, felsefe ve bilimsel söylem gibi çeşitli kaynaklardan farklı unsurların yeni anlamlar üretmek üzere bir araya geldiği dinamik bir mozaik olarak şiirsel üslubunu derinlemesine incelemektedir. Metinlerarasılık teorilerinden, özellikle de Julia Kristeva’nın teorilerinden yararlanan bu çalışma, Moore’un alıntı, uyarlama ve çağrışım kullanımı ile geleneksel özgünlük ve yazarlık anlayışlarını nasıl sorguladığını incelemektedir. Moore’un özenli sanatçılığı, yani şiir yazmadaki yaratıcı becerisi ve yeteneği ve yapıya verdiği önem, metinlerin etkileşiminin katmanlı yorumlara yol açtığı modernist ve postmodernist estetiğin kaynaşmasına dayanır. Bu makale, Moore’un seçilmiş şiirlerini inceleyerek, onun metinlerarası yaklaşımının yalnızca şiirsel vizyonunu derinleştirmekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda okuyucuları sanatın diyalojik doğasına aktif bir şekilde bağlanmaya davet ettiğini öne sürmektedir. Bu aktif katılım, metinler arasında diyalogları açığa çıkarır ve eski seslerin ve geleneklerin yeniden işlenmesi, yeni anlamlar üretmek için güçlü bir yöntem haline gelir. Bu şekilde, Moore modernist şiirsel ifadenin sınırlarını yeniden tanımlar, ödünç alınan sesleri ve referansları yenilikçi, karmaşık ve yalnızca kendine özgü bir şekilde dönüştürür, farklı geleneklerin ve fikirlerin bir arada var olup birbirlerini zenginleştirebileceği bir alan yaratır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışmanın amacı Moore’un seçilmiş şiirlerindeki metinlerarasılık unsurlarını saptamak ve analiz etmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Amerikan Şiiri , Julia Kristeva , Marianne Moore , Metinlerarasılık

Kaynakça

• Alfaro, M. J. M. (1996). Intertextuality: Origins and development of the concept. Atlantis, 18(1/2), 268-285.
• Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
• Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. In Michael Holquist (Ed.), Caryl Emerson and M. Holquist (Trans.). Austin: Texas UP.
• Bakhtin, M. (1984). The problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. In Carly Emerson (Ed. and Trans.); Intr. Wayne C. Booth, Minneapolis: Minnesota UP.
• Barthes, R. (2001). The death of the author. In Vincent B. Leitch. et al (Eds.). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1466-1470.
• Becker-Leckrone, M. (2005). Julia Kristeva and literary theory. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Brooker, P. (2001). A concise glossary of cultural theory. London: Arnold. Christian standard Bible. (2017). Holman Bible Publishers.
• Costello, B. (1981). Marianne Moore: Imaginary possessions. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
• Dickinson, E. (1999). The poems of Emily Dickinson. In R. W. Franklin (Ed.). The Belknap Press of Harvard UP.
• Duncan, A. R. C. (1952). The stoic view of life. Phoenix, 6(4), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/1086828.
• Eliot, T. S. (1971). Tradition and the individual talent. In Hazard Adams (Ed.), S. H. Butcher (Trans.). Critical Theory since Plato. San Diego: Harcourt.
• English revised version Bible. (1885). Cambridge UP.
• Emerson, R. W. (1854). Essays: First series. Boston: Phillips, Sampson.
• Flaumenhaft, M. J. (2014). The story of Jonah. The Review of Politics, 76(1), 1-19.
• Gloag, J. (1952). A short dictionary of furniture. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
• Grainge, P. (2002). Monochrome memories: Nostalgia and style in retro America. Westport, CT, and London: Praeger.
• Heuving, J. (1992). Omissions are not accidents. Detroit: Wayne State UP.
• Hicok, B. (2007). Companions in disguise: The conjuries of Wallace Stevens and Marianne Moore. The Wallace Stevens Journal, 31(2), 115–130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44885118.
• Jenkins, D. (1984). Marianne Moore: A presbyterian poet? Theology Today, 41(1), 34-41.
• Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue, and novel. In L. S. Roudiez (Ed.), Thomas Gora et al. (Trans.) New York: Columbia UP.
• Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in poetic language. In Margaret Waller (Ed.), Intr. Leon S. Roudiez (Trans.), New York: Columbia UP.
• Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader. In Toril Moi (Ed.). New York: Columbia UP.
• Lachmann, R. (1997). Memory and literature: Intertextuality in Russian modernism. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP.
• Leavell, L. (1995). Marianne Moore and the visual arts: Prismatic color. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP.
• Leavell, L. (2003). Marianne Moore, her family, and their language. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 147(2), 140-149.
• Longfellow, H. W. (1850). “Resignation.” A Maine Historical Society. https://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=117.
• McAfee, N. (2004). Julia Kristeva. New York: Routledge.
• Meek, R. L. (2014). Intertextuality, inner-biblical exegesis, and inner-biblical allusion: The ethics of a methodology. Biblica, 95(2), 280-291.
• Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Manna. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 28, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manna.
• Miller, C. (1995). Marianne Moore: Questions of authority. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
• Moi, T. (1986). “Introduction”. The Kristeva reader. New York: Columbia UP.
• Moore, M. (1921). “Feed me, also, river god.” Poets.org, https://poets.org/poem/feed-me-also-river-god.
• Moore, M. (1921). “He made this screen.” Poets.org, https://poets.org/poem/he-made-screen.
• Moore, M. (1921). “Is your town Nineveh?” Poetry Explorer. https://www.poetryexplorer.net/poem.php?id=10011883.
• Moore, M. (1924). “Silence.” Poets.org, https://poets.org/poem/silence-2.
• Moore, M. (1932). “No swan so fine.” AllPoetry. https://allpoetry.com/No-Swan-So-Fine.
• Moyise, S. (2002). Intertextuality and biblical studies. Verbum Et Ecclesia, 23(2), pp. 418-431.
• Pechman, A. (2014, June 17). “China is the magic place” Why Marianne Moore looked east for inspiration. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/70129/china-is-the-magic-place.
• Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.
• Prior, J. (1981). A life of Edmund Burke. London: G. Bell & Sons.
• Setina, E. (2016). Marianne Moore’s postwar fables and the politics of indirection. PMLA, 131(5), 1256–1273. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26158923.
• Shakespeare, W. (2012). The tragedy of Hamlet, prince of Denmark. In Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine (Eds.). Folger Shakespeare Library.
• Sim, S. (2001). The Routledge companion to postmodernism. London and New York: Routledge.
• Snyman, G. (1996). Who is speaking? Intertextuality and textual influence. Neotestamentica, 30(2), 427-449.
• Stamy, C. (2000). Marianne Moore and China: Orientalism and a writing of America (Oxford English monographs). Clarendon Press.
• Van Wolde, E. (1989). Trendy intertextuality. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, In S Draisma (Ed.), Kampen: Kok, 43-49.
• White H. C. & Carson L. (2011). A variety of hero: Marianne Moore’s romance. Journal of Modern Literature, 34(4), 63-83.
• Zengin, M. (2016). An introduction to intertextuality as a literary theory: definitions, axioms and the originators. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 25(1), 299-326.