Allegory Definition

An allegory is a story which is specifically symbolic for another story. This broad definition is widely accepted — but the question has arisen: Is a story an allegory only if the author intended it to be so?

There have been two different definitions of “allegory” presented. First: a story which is symbolic for another story, and obviously intended to be so. Second: a story which is apparently symbolic for another story — but whether or not it is actually an allegory depends on reader interpretation. It does have a good deal to do with the author’s intent, however; because it’s difficult to find an underlying symbolic story if the author had absolutely no intention of an allegory. The second definition simply does not limit an allegory to what the author might have intended — since that is arbitrary and often subject to debate — and says rather that calling something an allegory depends more the reader’s interpretation.

My main point in defending the second definition is this — unless the author makes it obvious that the work is allegorical for some higher story, then it depends greatly on what the reader reads into the story. There are books which are obviously allegories, and which everyone agrees are such. An example of this is Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, in which the names of the characters, such as Christian, and the names of places, such as The Slough of Despond, obviously correspond to a greater story. Here, the author’s intent is pertinent, but only because it is supremely obvious.

There are other stories, however, such as Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea, which prompt debate and discussion concerning whether or not the story may be taken as an allegory. The story could go either way, and it is not obvious what the author meant as he wrote it. Thus, as scholars debate the point, they are debating what the author’s intent originally was, which means that one cannot use author’s intent as a firm point to decide whether or not a story is an allegory. When a reader decides the piece is an allegory, or is not, it depends on the way the reader himself is interpreting it, not on what the author may or may not have meant.

Then there are stories which the author never intended to make allegorical, and which readers can read and see allegory and symbolism in. This is depending on the events in the life of the readers, and parallels that they see, which nobody else may ever see. Thus, the interpretation of a story is completely relative, and based on the reader’s interpretation.

To reiterate — although the author is able to put his or her own intentions into the story, it depends on the reader to interpret those intentions the way he or she wishes. And the definition of allegory ought not to depend on what the author intends — since those intentions are often arbitrary — but rather on what the reader may see in the story.

Posted at 1:48 am EST on the 22nd of January 2009 by L. M. Corinth.

Under Essays as ,

There are 4 replies.
 
  1. J. R. Ahern says on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    Your first definition seems a bit lacking to me – as I understood an unnamed English teacher to be defining it, he was talking not simply about one story being symbolic of another. That’s rather difficult since every story is symbolic of another to a degree. I think the definition was more about a different ontological emphasis. In talking about Christian or the Slough of Despair, we are not primarily talking about them. The important reality is what they stand for, not themselves. I’m not sure that changes your argument other than to form another discrepancy between your definition and the first.

    I suppose my main problem with your argument is at the end of the fourth paragraph. I believe you make the argument thus – (1) scholars debate on the the allegorical significance of the book; (2) thus we can’t know the significance according to the author’s intent; (3) it’s up to us to decide the significance. That’s saying that since there’s debate about it, we can’t know if it’s true. That’s like saying that because scholars debate on what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang that we can’t really know anything about the Big Bang. It’s epistemological suicide. At this rate, we won’t be able to know anything for certain because it’s controversial. But I may have misinterpreted your premises.

    (Interestingly, that’s the argument that some post-positivist relativists make about objective morality – since different cultures have different perceptions of it, one single standard must not exist – like the scholars analyzing the Old Man. But again, take the science analogy. Two scientists may look at Jupiter and come to different conclusions about it’s chemical makeup, but that doesn’t mean that, first, the Jupiter doesn’t exist, or, second, that we can’t know anything about Jupiter. That may be slightly analogous to your argument.)

  2. Anonymous says on January 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    What a blockheadish thing to say! Both of you!

  3. Anonymous says on January 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    You’re all blockheads!

  4. L. M. Corinth says on January 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    John — the difference between my argument in the fourth paragraph, and the argument for objective morality, is that there IS a standard for morality; which can be found in the Bible or in our consciences, or by looking around… murder and rape are obviously wrong.

    There are two kinds of truth, relative and absolute, and I’m arguing that the definition of allegory is relative based on the reader’s perception. There will always be debate about EVERYTHING, including subjective morality, and I’m not saying that just because there is debate about it we can’t know anything about it — I’m saying that there is no obvious standard for what is or is not allegory (setting aside the authors who stated their stories were allegories, obviously) and therefore it ought to depend on the perception of the reader.

    About the Big Bang example — we never WILL know exactly what happened in the first few seconds. I’m not saying we should never debate things such as allegories or the Big Bang because we will never know exactly, but I’m saying there is no hard and fast definition for allegory (or any way to know exactly what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang) and therefore it depends on the reader. Basically, my argument applies to this example, too. :P