102 gregory p. fewster
and corpus.49 these conceptual frameworks are mutually defining insofar
as the corpus is the primary witness to understanding its author and,
in turn, the author provides the axiom (or “principle of thrift”) for the
interpretation of that corpus. foucault teases out such a relationship with
reference to the english playwright William shakespeare.50 the name
“shakespeare,” corresponding to some playwright, serves to classify a col-
lection of comedies, tragedies, sonnets, etc. the assignment of that name to
such works carries with it certain implications and provides an organizing
principle in their interpretation.51 on the other hand, the discovery that
certain of shakespeare’s works were not, in fact, written by him, severely
alters one’s view of shakespeare as author. as a result, subsequent read-
ings of that author’s corpus would be altered. such is the circular dynamic
between author and corpus. on a theoretical level, Pauline authorship
thus evokes a corpus, allowing these letters to be appreciated in light of
one another. as opposed to canon, corpus does not necessarily make an
appeal to authority (given the functional rather than historical apprecia-
tion of authorship) but simply provides a context for interpretation.
such a function is designated by the signature of the author. as noted
above, Pauline scholarship must negotiate the tension produced by the
communal character of the Pauline letters and its simultaneous organiza-
tion around a single historical character. interestingly, the signature holds
a unique position in literature insofar as it concurrently provides a direct
link to the author and distances the author and text.52 even if it does not
“endure the safe transmission of authorial intentions,” the signature pro-
vides a link with a signer, a “structure of resummons whereby the author
may be recalled to his or her text.”53 this perspective on signature makes
49 i realize that foucault remains in the authorial-death camp, more in line with Bar-
thes. However, my reading of foucault suggests a trajectory worth following.
50 see michel foucault, “What is an author?” in Josue V. Harari (ed.), Textual Strategies:
Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism (ithaca: cornell university Press, 1979), 146.
51 or today, many give it a sort of dis-credibility, given the popular lack of appreciation
for shakespeare.
52 derrida writes, “by definition, a written signature implies the actual or empirical
nonpresence of the signer” ( Jacques derrida, “signature event context,” in gerald graff
[ed.], Limited Inc [evanston, il: northwestern university Press, 1977], 20). the functional-
ity and readability of the signature seems to depend on its repeatability (while maintain-
ing its form or else ceasing to be a signature). at that point the signature is “detached
from the present and singular intention of its production.” in the context of pseudepig-
raphy, signatures hold an important place inasmuch as they act much like what derrida
describes. the signature ties itself to an author but also remains available for inauthentic
(thus inappropriate) use.
53 seán Burke, “the ethics of signature,” in his Authorship: From Plato to the Postmod-
ern, a Reader (edinburgh: edinburgh university Press, 1995), 289–90. cf. comments made
in Jed Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish,