U N I V E R S I D A D E F E D E R A L DE S A N T A C A T A R I N A P O S - G R A D U A C S O EM INGLÊ S E L I T E R A T U R A C O R R E S P O N D E N T E S E X U A L I T Y A N D N A T U R E IN R O B E R T F R O S T ' S L Y RICS por D A N I E L A LAPOLI D i s s e r t a ç ã o s u b m e t i d a à U n i v e r s i d a d e Fe deral de S anta C a t a r i n a p a r a a o b t e n ç ã o do grau de M E S T R E EM L E T R A S F l o r i a n ó p o l i s D e z e m b r o de Í992
II s t a cl .i. s s e r t: a ç: a o f o i j u l g a cl a a d e q u a d a e a p r o v a d a e iti s u a f o r m a Final p e 1 o P r o g r a m a de P ó s - G r a d u a ç a o em Ing'iës p a r a a o b t: e n v a o d o g r a u d e M E S T R E E M L E T R A S Ü p ç a o I n g l ê s e L i t e r a t u r a C o r r e s p o n d e n t e D r a . L é o n o r Sel :i. a r C a b r a 1 C O O R D E N A D O R A
D r . S y r g :i. a I... u :i. a. p r a cl o B e 1 1 e :i. 0 R 1 E W A D 0 R B A N C A E X A M I N A D O R A D r . Æ S r g ia I... u i z P r a d o B e 1 l e :i. o r i hLw t a d o r &G<£tjLe~o Dra. S u s a n a B o r n é o Funck E X A M I N A D O R A ' K .. Dr a . An e 1 i se Cor s e u :i. 1 E X A M I N A D O R A F l o r i a n ó p o l i s , íí de D e z e m b r o de Í998
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
I w ould like to ex ten d my debt of g r a t i t u d e to
P r o f e s s o r Dr. S é r g i o Luiz P rado Bel lei, for his i n v a l u a b l e o r i e n t a t i o n .
All p r o f e s s o r s from the M.A. P r o g r a m from UFSC, for their l e c t u r e s and sup por t duri ng the two y e ars of my M.A. c o u r s e .
Th e C N P q Program, for a two y ear s and six mont hs M.A. s c h o l a r s h i p and for a t h r e e m o n t h s res earc h s c h o l a r s h i p in the U n i t e d States.
P r o f e s s o r Dr. José R o b e r t o O'Shea, for his i n d i c a t i o n s and c o n t a c t s in the Un it ed States.
P r o f e s s o r Dr. G e o r g e Lensing, Prof e s s o r of Englis h at the U n i v e r s i t y of Nor th C a r o l i n a at Chapel Hill, who kindly a c c e p t e d to be my a d v iser d u ring t h ree m o nths of research .
The D e p a r t m e n t of En glish from the U n i v e r s i t y of N ort h C a r o l i n a at Chapel Hill, which received me as a visiting s c h o l a r and a l l o w e d me to us e the library f a c i l i t i e s of the
inst itut i o n .
M a r c e l o N e ves G u i m a r ã e s and Ruiter Borges, from E M G E L , for their help and e n c o u r a g e m e n t in the final s t a g e s of t h i s w o r k .
My family and friends, who, in one way or another, gave me s t r e n g t h and e n t h u s i a s m du ring the y e ars of my M.A. c o u r s e .
S E X U A L I T Y A N D N A T U R E IN R O B E R T F R O S T ' S LYR I CS
DA N I E L A LAPOL I
U N I V E R S I D A D E F E D E R A L DE S A N T A C A T A R I N A 1992
S u p e r v i s i n g P r o f e s s o r : S é r g i o L u i z P rado Bel lei
A B S T R A C T
The p u r p o s e of th is d i s s e r t a t i o n is to a n a l y z e the p r e s e n c e of human s e x u a l i t y in Robert F r o s t ' s poetic product ion, t h r o u g h the a n a l y s i s of t w e n t y - t h r e e n a ture lyrics. Tak ing as t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s th e me thod p r o p o s e d by the Frenc h S e m i o t i c i a n H ich a e l R i f f a t e r r e in the book S e m i o t i c s of E o e t c y (1980), this s tud y a n a l y z e s the g a m e of poe tic language in the texts, sh owing that a l t h o u g h at t h e m i m e s i s level they seem to be about nature, they deal with e r o t i c i s m in the s e m i o s i s level.
In the first ch ap t e r we p r o v i d e the reade r with an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the s e m i o t i c me thod we p r o p o s e to consider , as well as to the t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t i c i s m on Robert Frost. The second c h a p t e r a n a l y z e s l y r i c s which deal with a s s o c i a t i o n s between a part of n a t u r e and f e male sexua lit y, and with the s p e a k e r ' s e r o t i c p r o j e c t i o n s into nature. The final ch apter p r e s e n t s those l yri c s whic h deal with an ero tic i n vitation to a listener, and
with the account of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e eroti c ex per iences. The c o n c l u s i o n s h o w s that hu man sexu a l i t y is stro n g l y present in Robe rt F r o s t ' s works, not only in his n a r r a t i v e or dramatic poems, but a l s o in his a p p a r e n t l y innocent n a t u r e lyrics.
R E S U M O
Este t r a b a l h o se p r o p o e a analisar a p r e s e n ç a da s e x u a l i d a d e h u m a n a na líri ca de Robert F r o s t , através do estud o de v i n t e e tri s p o e m a s s o b r e a natu reza. T o m ando como base t e ó r i c a o m é t o d o p r o p o s t o pel o S e m i ó t i c o fr ancês Michael R i f f a t e r r e no livro S e m i ó t i c a of E o e t n a (1980),. este estudo a n a l i s a o jogo da l i n g u a g e m p o é t i c a m o s t r a n d o que, ao m e s m o te mpo em que e s t e s p o e m a s líri cos p a r e c e m re criar o r e a l - n a t u r e z a , a p r e s e n t a m t a m b é m o tem a do e r o t i s m o no nível s e m i ó t i c o da
li nguagem.
0 p r i m e i r o c a p í t u l o a p r e s e n t a ao leitor uma i n t r o d u ç ã o ao m é t o d o s e m i ó t i c o que se p r o p o e cons ide rar , bem como
os a r g u m e n t o s da c r í t i c a t r a d icional de Robert Frost. 0 s e g u n d o c a p í t u l o c o n s i d e r a os p o e m a s que lidam com a s s o c i a ç o e s entre um e l e m e n t o da n a t u r e z a e a s e x u a l i d a d e feminina, e com p r o j e ç õ e s e r ó t i c a s do eu líri co na nat ureza. 0 c a p í t u l o final a n a l i s a os p o e m a s que a p r e s e n t a m c o n v i t e s e r ó t i c o s e e x p e r i ê n c i a s e r ó t i c a s p o s i t i v a s e negat iva s. C o n c l u i - s e que o tema da s e x u a l i d a d e h u m a n a e s t á f o r t e m e n t e p r e s e n t e na p r o d u ç ã o de Robert Frost, não a p e n a s nos p o e m a s d r a m á t i c o s ou nar rati vo s, mas t a m b é m nos
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S C H A P T E R I S e x u a l i t y and N a t u r e in Robert F r o s t ' s L y r i c s 01 C H A P T E R II A s s o c i a t i o n s B e t w e e n N a t u r e and M a l e / F e m a l e S e x u a l i t y 35 C H A P T E R III Er otic I n v i t a t i o n s and E x p e r i e n c e s 8i C O N C L U S I O N 133 W O R K S C I T E D 140
C H A P T E R I
S E X U A L I T Y AND N A T U R E IN R O B E R T F R O S T ' S LYRI C S
Robert Lee F r o s t ' s p r e s e n c e in the his tor y of A m e r i c a n l e t t e r s is u n d o u b t e d l y one of the most powe rfu l and c o n t r o v e r s i a l of the t w e n t i e t h century. He achi e v e d an in credibly high p o p u l a r i t y d u ring his lifetime, r e c e i v i n g hono r a r y de grees by a n u mber of u n i v e r s i t i e s (he was t w i c e n o m i n a t e d a Mast er of Arts, t h r e e t i m e s a Doctor of the H u m a n i t i e s and t w e l v e time s a Doctor of L etter s), four P u l i t z e r prizes, the gold medal from the Nation al I n s t i t u t e of Arts and L e t t e r s and even an official cita t i o n from the S e n a t e of the Un ited S t ates to honor the poet in his s e v e n t y - f i f t h birth day. In J a n uary 196i, Frost was invited to read his work du ring John F. K e n n e d y ' s presidenti al inaug u ration. When he read the line "The land was ours before we were the land's" from "The Gift O u t r i g h t " (348), he was already the most wide l y known poet of Amer i c a n history. Whet h e r this has to do with the poet or with the myth is a di fficult que sti on to answer. His p o e m s sure ly te s tify that he is a great poet. On the othe r hand, as Phi lip Gerbe r observes, "... t h e nation crea t e d Robert Frost in the image its need most d e s i r e d , " that is, Frost " s y m b o l i z e d the peaceful, s e l f - k nowing, and independent citi z e n w h o m every A m e r i c a n d r e amed /of b e c o m i n g " ( 0 i/02). His
i mag e was the one of the good gran dfa the r, the wise old man wh o t y p i f i e d the d ream of si mple life and "rural i n n o cence", and it is almost impo s s i b l e to kn ow w h e t her Frost 's p o p u l a r i t y is a result of the p o et's a c h i evement or of the m y t h i f i c a t i o n of his image.
It is a l r e a d y known that Robert Frost spent his l i t e r a r y care e r tr yi ng to fit the po rtrait of the sweet g r a n d f a t h e r , c a u t i o u s and full of proverbs, b e c a u s e of the great p o p u l a r i t y thi s portrait cou ld gi ve him. And it was p r e c i s e l y the i n t e n s e p o p u l a r i t y he a c h i e v e d what kept him from b e l o n g i n g to the c a t e g o r y of the "great po ets" of the t wentieth century. It is a s s u m e d by the liter ary cano n that, beca u s e of the apparent s i m p l i c i t y of theme, v o c a b u l a r y and g e o g r aphical s e t ting of F r o s t ' s poetry, he is more e a sily read than are T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Y eats and others. And w hile this a s s u m p t i o n survives, a r e d u c t i o n i s t lack of inte n s i t y is brought to his poetry, at the e x p e n s e of the loss of the great subtl e t y his work o f f e r s us.
In fact, rural s c e n e s and buco lic ima ges are the ve ry raw materia l of his poetry. This is ad ded to sharp o b s e r v a t i o n of outer real i t y and to the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d s t r u c t u r e of his n a r ratives. As J a m e s Po tter observes:
His s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e is g enerally direct and unc o m p l i c a t e d , his diction rel atively plain. T h e r e are no p u r p l e passages, indeed little rhetoric; he leans toward u n d e r s t a t e m e n t , if anything. It is a c o m m o n p l a c e that his styl e is c o n v e r s a t i o n a l . Si milarly, his pros o d y uses common m e t e r s like iambic tetr a m e t e r and p e n t ameter, and follows u n e l a b o r a t e or loose rhym e schemes. We find little free verse, few exo tic e x p e r i m e n t s in p r o s o d y . < 70)
It is o b v i o u s l y an e x a g g e r a t i o n to c o n s i d e r Robert Frost an inno v a t o r in t e r m s of form. Whi le the modernist l i t e r a t u r e of the t w e n t i e t h cen tur y was mar ke d by e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , F r o s t ' s p oet r y surel y remains in the traditio nal m o d e of t e c h n i c a l v e r s i f i c a t i o n . On the other hand, his critical statur e, as well as the cons tant label s that c r i t i c s and read ers a t t r i b u t e d to his work c e r t a i n l y need revision. It is worth m e n t i o n i n g C l e a n t h B r o o k ' s remark that "much of F r o s t ' s poetry h a r d l y r i s e s a bove the level of the v i g n e t t e of rural New E n g l a n d " <i06), and the remark ma de by G e orge N i t c h i e which d i m i n i s h e s Frost as a poet b e c a u s e he is "not very much con cer ned with d e v e l o p i n g a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y consi ste nt concept of nature" <i3>. T h e s e are o b v i o u s l y the r e s u l t s of s i m p l i s t i c views of F r o s t ' s work w hich do not consider the fact that behind the appa r e n t s i m p l i c i t y of his poet ic p r o d u c t i o n we can find d e e p e r leve l s of c o m p l e x i t y both in terms of formal sty le and theme. As R i c h a r d P o i r i e r p o i n t s out,
... eng agi ng y o u r s e l f c r i t i c a l l y with Frost is like takin g a trip with an old n e i g h b o r h o o d friend and d i s c o v e r i n g un der the stre s s of travel that he can on o c c a s i o n be alto g e t h e r more m y s t e r i o u s than you'd b a r g a i n e d for.... (06)
The exte nt to which Fros t ' s work has been c o n s t a n t l y m i s u n d e r s t o o d may be felt in the two q u e s t i o n a b l e l a bels most c o m m o n l y a t t r i b u t e d to him: realist and con servative. The latter a d j e c t i v e is c l o s e l y re lated to F r o s t ' s r e l a t i o n with the m o d e r n i s t movem ent , m o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y to the r e l a t i o n bet wee n F r o s t ' s work and the work of his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s Eliot, Pound,
S t e v e n s and Wi ll iams . Frost was c o n s i d e r e d for a long time a r e s i s t a n c e both to the e n t e r p r i s e of Making it New and to the imagist move m e n t . In his a r t i c l e "Frost and Modernism ", Robert K ern a t t a c k s t h i s a s s u m p t i o n sa ying that Frost r e p r e s e n t e d an o l d - f a s h i o n e d way to be new and that his n e w n e s s b asically c o n s i s t e d of h is "radical renewal and revi s i o n of the W o r d s w o r t h i a n project of a p p r o p r i a t i n g the language of ev eryday
life for p o e t r y "(03).
F r o s t ' s p a r t i c u l a r r e b e l l i o n against the boo kis h r h e t o r i c that m o d e r n i s m was sought to avoid was the crea t i o n of a theo r y c a lled "the soun d of sense", thr oug h which he raised A m e r i c a n oral l a n g u a g e to the s t a t u r e of li terary language. In many of his l e t t e r s we have g l i m p s e s of his b e l i e f s in re la ti on to this theory, as when he w r i t e s in a i9i3 letter to John Bar tlett: "The s oun d of sense, then. You get that. It is the a b s t r a c t v i t a l i t y of our speech. It is pure sound - pure form" (S e l e c t e d L e t t e c s of B a b e t t Enost, 80). The central idea of this t h eory is e x p l a i n e d in another letter a d d r e s s e d to John Bartlett o n e year later:
I g i v e you a new d e f i n i t i o n of a sentence.
A s e n t e n c e is a sou nd in itse lf on which other s o u n d s c a lled w o r d s may be s t r u n g . ...
They are a p p r e h e n d e d by the ear. They are g a t h e r e d by the ear from the v e r n a c u l a r and brought
into books, (iii)
In ot her lett e r s Frost in sis ts upon this idea, add ing that the s e n t e n c e - s o u n d s say more than w ords and that they may even conv e y (as in irony) "a m e a ning o p p o s i t e to the w o r d s " ( i i 3 ) . This is the basic d i f f e r e n c e b e t ween what he calls
the " g r a m m atical s e n t e n c e " and the "vital s e n t e n c e " (140). Wher e a s t h e i m a g i s t s ( c o n s i d e r i n g l a n g u a g e a group of c l i c h e s that had lost their original c o m m u n i c a t i v e power) we re seeki ng to capt u r e images for the eyes thro u g h their art, Frost was uni ting these images for the eyes with imag es for the ear, also focusi ng the issues of v o ice and sound. In Robert K e r n ' s view, Frost was not " o p p o s i n g i m a g i s m so much as a t t e m p t i n g to r e d e f i n e it, to extend its li mits" (12). F r o s t ' s n a r r a t i v e s poems, in fact, pr ovide go od e x a m p l e s of this a p p l i c a t i o n to the sound of s e nse into poetry. When one r e a d s "Home Burial", for instance, one has to be a w a r e of the d i f f e r e n t t o nes of v oice in the d i a l o g u e bet we en h u s b a n d and wife. We c ould even say that the n a r r a t i v e o p e r a t e s on two levels: the level of d i a l o g u e and the level of physical movem e n t a c c o r d i n g to d ifferent t ones of voice. As E l a i n e Barry affi rms , "Almost all of his p o e m s are e x p e r i m e n t s in t ones of voice, ways of sayi n g a thin g" (11). The set ting of most of his p o e m s is New Englan d; his c h a r a c t e r s are most ly Y a n k e e farmers; his theme, human beings. Besides, he i n c o r p o r a t e s the fresh s e n t e n c e s " a p p r e h e n d e d by the ear" into poetry, crea t i n g a u t e n t i c i t y and innovati on.
T h e r e is an oth er important aspect of F r o s t ' s po et ry that s t r e n g t h e n s his inc lusion in the ca te g o r y of "m odern poet": his mod ern view of nature. C r i t i c s h a v e assu med for a long time that Frost is a typic al "na tur e poet" in the ve rsio n of Emerson, T h o r e a u and Word s w o r t h , the one who a d v o c a t e s the s u p e r i o r i t y of n a t u r e as the "great teacher ", or as the b a c k g r o u n d that p r o v i d e s the framework for t r a n s c e n d e n t a l experiences . In " C o n f u s i o n and
Form: Rob er t Frost as N a t u r e P o e t ", Donald Gr einer says that Fro st d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n two ideas of nature. W h e r e a s in the first (wes ter n idea) hum an b e i n g s shou ld master nature, in the s e c o n d (eas ter n idea) h u m a n b e i n g s should look for a saviour, b e c a u s e n a t u r e is too much for them. Frost is inclu ded in the s e c o n d ca tegory, w h i l e E m e r s o n and W o r dsworth are clea r l y in the first. As John Lynen p u t s it, "wher e a s Wor d s w o r t h sees in nature a m y s t i c a l k i n d s h i p with the hu man mind, Frost v i e w s n a t u r e as e s s e n t i a l l y alie n" (145). Most of F r o s t ' s poems (almost one third of them) prese nt a very dark view of nature, with comp l e x m e t a p h o r i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s for the winter, the snow, the nights, the woods. If F r o s t ' s c o m m o n d e v i c e is the o u t e r - i n n e r met aph or b e t w e e n s e a s o n s and hum an be ings' p sychological states, we must c o n c l u d e that the s u p e r i o r i t y of the terror over the re birth p r o c l a i m e d by E m e r s o n and W o r d s w o r t h p l aces Robert F r o s t ' s a t t i t u d e tow ar d n a t u r e into a differ ent category. Th e men tion of th e t e rro r in F r o s t ' s p o e t r y was first made by Lionel Tri ll in g in 1959, d u ring a spe ech for the cele b r a t i o n of F r o s t ' s birthday. It c a u s e d a g e n e r a l i z e d shock in the audience, as well as n u m e r o u s p r o t e s t s t h r o u g h o u t the country. Tril l i n g was merely a r g u i n g the obvious: F r o s t ' s work p r e s e n t s the terr or of human b e i n g s ' l o n e l i n e s s in the world. In his own words, "the u n i v e r s e he c o n c e i v e s is a t e r r i f y i n g uni verse" (Bab.£Et Enost-L Aq l o t E Q d U C t i Q Q , 155).
In "Frost and the Amer i c a n Vi ew of Nature", Clark G r i f f i t h e x p l a i n s that A m e r i c a n w r i t e r s e x p e r i e n c e d on e single a t t i t u d e to ward n a t u r e for over two c e n t u r i e s - from the P u r i t a n s to E m e r s o n and Thoreau. T h i s a t t i t u d e included an a s s u m p t i o n that
n a t u r e was the s u p r e m e teacher, w h o s e t e a c h i n g s would e l e v a t e the h uman ob se rver . Frost s h a r e s this point of view with E m e r s o n and the P u r i t a n s s i n c e he b u i l d s b r i d g e s be tween outer and inner r e a l i t i e s in an E m e r s o n i a n sense. If we read E m e r s o n ' s bfatune l ooki ng for c o n n e c t i o n s with Frost, we immediately feel that when E m e r s o n says that " P a r t i c u l a r natur al facts are s y m b o l s of p a r t i c u l a r s p i r i t u a l facts" or that "Nature is the symb ol of s p i r i t " (20) he s e e m s to be r e f e r r i n g to F r o s t ' s ana log y between out er w e a ther and inner mood, natu ral facts and human life. On the other hand, as G r i f f i t h advo cates, Frost also s h a r e s with E mily D i c k i n s o n and H e rman M e l v i l l e the not ion that n a t u r e may be a teacher but, most of the times, when one goes to n a t u r e looking for answers, one c o m e s back with empt y hands. Besides, Frost still h e lds a p o s i t i o n ty pical of a t w e n t i e t h cen tur y w r i t e r - he d o e s not feel i n d i g n a t i o n or anger (unlike D i c k i n s o n and M elv i l l e ) when he r e a l i z e s that his j ou rn ey into n a t u r e is useless. A c c o r d i n g to Gri ffi th, "As a t wen t i e t h cent u r y writer, imbued with t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y s k e p t icism, he has been far enou gh r e m o v e d from the E m e r s o n i a n point of vi ew not to be o u t r a g e d when it failed him" (36). In fact, Frost neither loves nor fears nature. He is a w a r e of its pre sen ce, but k no ws he can ask very li ttle of her. In this sense, his a t t i t u d e is cl early " u n r o m anti c", u n l i k e t hose of Emerson, T h o r e a u and Wordsworth . F r o m thi s same a t t i t u d e c ome s the " t e r r i f y i n g u n i v e r s e ” of human b e i n g s ' l o n e l i n e s s .
In r e l a t i o n to the othe r label Frost r e c e i v e d real ist - when on e r e a d s F r o s t ' s p o e m s one may feel that what he
b a s i c a l l y does is to u se e v e r y d a y language and c o n c r e t e facts of n a t u r e to talk about a great v a r iety of larger issues. As he h i m s e l f p o i n t s out in th e e ssa y "The Consta nt Symbol", poetry is meta p h o r , "saying o n e t h ing and me ani ng another, sayin g one thing in t e r m s of ano the r, th e p l e a s u r e of u l t e r i o r i t y " (£4). He c l e a r l y w r i t e s on m u l t i p l e le ve l s of meaning, implying a n a l o g i e s b e t w e e n p o r t r a y a l s of rural s c e nes or e v ents and feel i n g s or e x p e r i e n c e s p e o p l e face. When he t a lks about c o n c r e t e things, he a l s o t a l k s about s o m e t h i n g else. As Regin a l d Cook observe s, "he k n o w s that by r e f i n i n g a th ought to its e s s e n t i a l s you mu lti pl y the leve l s of m e a n i n g . " <Ihe B i m e D s i O Q S of Rob ert Erost, 102).
When Fros t t a l k s about external r e a l i t i e s of the world, his d e s c r i p t i o n s s u f fer an alc hemic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in which, at the end of th e poems, we have the impression that the w o r d s a c h i e v e a h i g h e r level of s i gnificance. The w ords s eem to m o v e from their s u r f a c e m e a n i n g to an other level of disc our se, in the same way that the objects, s c e n e s and e v ents d e s c r i b e d reach the level of m e t a p h o r or syne c d o c h e . So much so that F r o s t ' s r e c u r r e n t str u c t u r a l t e n d e n c y has been defin ed as a movement from "s ight" to " insight" ( " F r o s t ' s S y n e c d o c h i s m " , 379). In F r o s t ' s own words, a poem b e g i n s in " delight" and ends in "wisdom", in a " m o m e n t a r y stay a g a i n s t c o n f u s i o n "
(Selected Erase of Babert
Erost,
18). That is why the p e r s o n a who, on the s u r f a c e level, s t o p s by "the w o o d s on a s nowy evening ", ex per iences , on a deeper level of sig n i f i c a n c e , a much larger and c o m p l e x enco un ter: the a w a r e n e s s of death, with its peacefu l, so undless, "dark and d e e p ” sleep, and the a w a r e n e s s of the many "P rom ises to keep" in the " m i l e s to go" b e f o r e t h i s final rest. By the same token, thep e r s o n a who c h o o s e s b e t w e e n two roads d i v e r g i n g "in a yello w woo d" is facing the p r o b l e m (or the u s e fulness) of de cisions, s u s p e c t i n g that "sig h" and d e c i s i o n are i n t r i n s i c a l l y linked with the t raveler that cannot take two roads be ing the same tr avel er. Isn't the t r a v e l e r s u g g e s t i n g that the hu man being neve r c h o o s e s only on e road, but is forever mark ed by the sigh of the “Road not t a k e n " ? This j u s t i f i e s F r o s t ' s co mment during his le ctur e in i960, at the U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a at Chap el Hill: "... t h e y ' r e not n a ture poems, much. T h e y ' r e real l y human, all of them" (i960). This also j u s t i f i e s Robert D i y a n n i ' s o b s e r v a t i o n that
To read F r o s t ' s poetry is to p l u n g e into w o r k s w h o s e s i g n i f i c a n c e deepens, w hos e m e a n i n g s r e v e r b e r a t e , on su bseq uent readings. Later r e a d i n g s exhi bit th e r i p p l i n g effect ach i e v e d by t h r o w i n g a s t o n e into a pool of water. The wide n i n g c o n c e n t r i c c i r c l e s m i rror the way in which F r o s t ' s poetic s y m b o l s e x pand in i m p l i c ation." (196)
And yet, c r i t i c s and r e a d e r s in the past failed to see the wide c o m p l e x i t y re lated to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of F r o s t ' s poems, and c h o s e to b e l i e v e in the n o t i o n s that Frost was a c onservative, rea lis t p o e t .
One field of r e s e a r c h that c e r t a i n l y n eeds inquiry, as a sig n i f i c a n t part of F r o s t ' s tra n s c e n d e n t a l r e a l i s m is the sexual element in F r o s t ' s work. There is a good numb er of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of F r o s t ' s n a r r a t i v e poems, in which he p r e s e n t s men and women in c o m p l e x rel a t i o n s h i p s , facing the p r o b l e m s of marr iag e, trying to c o m m u n i c a t e with each other in s pite of their di f f e rences, and, most of all, in which he p r e s e n t s a very
r e a l i s t i c view of women. In p o e m s such as "The Witch of Coos", " H o m e Bu rial", "The Fear", "The Hill Wife", "A Servant to S e r v a n t s " and "The H o u s e k e e p e r " , Frost p o r t r a y s women either t o t a l l y d o m i n a t e d by m e n ' s v i o l e n c e or in their way to madness, w h i c h woul d be the only s o l u t i o n to the fr ustra tion of their lives. The sexual e le me nt in t h e s e poem s is no tably strong, e s p e c i a l l y in "Home B u r ial" w h e r e we find e v e r y w h e r e e v i d e n c e s of sexual t h r e a t .
On the oth er hand, very litt le has been said about th e se xu al o v e r t o n e s in F r o s t ' s lyrics. C r i tics have pre ferred t h e c o m f o r t a b l e s t a n c e of a n a l y z i n g F r o s t ' s lyrics sim pl y as " n a t u r e lyrics", p e r h a p s b e c a u s e such a n a l y s e s would not thre ate n th e p ort r a i t of the good g r a n d f a t h e r of American literature. M o r e o v e r , if we c o n c e n t r a t e our a n a l y s e s on the "concentric c i r c l e s " of the poems' s i g n i f i c a n c e s , the sexual element will be i n e v i t a b l y there. John S e a r s (1989), Richard W a k e f i e l d <i985) and R i c h a r d P o i ri er (1990) have focused their a t t e n t i o n on this p a r t i c u l a r field of res ear ch, and prod u c e d good a n a l y s e s of some of F r o s t ' s lyrics. A l t h o u g h Poir i e r uses s ex uality in F r o s t ' s work as a m e t a p h o r for the m a k i n g of poetry, he a l lows the sexual o v e r t o n e s of the p o e m s to d e v e l o p duri ng his readings.
In th is d i s s e r t a t i o n I intend to a n a l y z e the sexual and s e n s u o u s e l e m e n t s in Robert F r o s t ' s lyrics, c o n c e n t r a t i n g my a n a l y s e s only on t h ose ly rics which deal with n a ture at the m i m e t i c level. Due to the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a c h r o n o l o g i c a l study of h u m a n s e n s u a l i t y in Robert F r o s t ' s work (he wrote most of the s e n s u o u s lyri cs b e f o r e the p u b l i c a t i o n of his first book and s e l e c t e d them thr oughout the later ones), this will be a thematic
study d i v i d e d into two main parts:
A) A s s o c i a t i o n s betw e e n N a ture and M a l e / F e m a l e Sexual ity
- A s s o c i a t i o n s b e t w e e n N a t u r e and Female Sex uality 1- "Th e R o s e F a m i l y "
2- " G o o d - b y and Keep Cold"
3- "Ne ver A g ain Would Birds' Song Be the Same" 4- " U n h a r v e s t e d "
5- "The T e l e p h o n e "
- S p e a k e r ' s own s e x u a l i t y proj e c t e d into N a t u r e 6- "lioon C o m p a s s e s ” 7- "Ghost Hous e " 8- "To E a r t h w a r d " 9- "A D r e a m Pa ng" 10- " W a i t i n g - A f ield at Dusk" 11- " R e l u c t a n c e " B) E r o t i c I n v i t a t i o n s and E x p e r i e n c e s - I n v i t a t i o n s 1- "The P a s t u r e " 2- "A L i n e - S t o r m S o n g ” 3- "A P r a y e r in. Sp ring" 4- " P u t t i n g in the S e e d ”
- E x p e r i e n c e s 1- "In a Val e" 2- "Rose P o g o n i a s "
3- "Going for Water 4- "All R e v e l a t i o n "
5- "The S t r o n g are Sayin g Nothi ng" 6- "The S u b v e r t e d Flower"
7- "Wind and W i n d o w Fl ower" 8- " D e v o t i o n "
The c h o i c e of the critical appro ach in the a n a l y s e s of the p o e m s was ma de takin g into c o n s i d e r a t i o n Robert S c h o l e s ' d e f i n i t i o n of the basic d i f f e r e n c e be tween fi ction and po etry, wh ich
...is bas ed on the notion of p o e t r y as monu m e n t a l , fixed in the word s of the text and t h e r e f o r e u n t r a n s l a t a b l e ; while fiction h a s proved h i ghly t r a n s l a t a b l e b e c a u s e its e s s e n c e is not in its l a n g u a g e but in its dieget ic s t r u c t u r e . "
(173)
It s eems to me that the best appr o a c h rega r d i n g Robert F r o s t ' s canon is the o ne which is to tally b as ed in the p o e m as a cl osed entity. S e a r c h i n g for different "ways of sayin g a t h i n g " F r o s t ' s m ove m e n t is c l e a r l y from sight to insight, from "mat t e r to spirit". Hi s p o e m s clea r l y present a "det o u r " that must not be e x p l a i n e d with extern al da ta but within the realm of the text. Mo reover, c r i t i c s in general have p r e f e r r e d to use b i o g r a p h i c a l data, in s p i t e of the evident necessi t y of i n t e r p r e t i n g F r o s t ' s p o e t r y p urs u i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e in the p o e t i c d i s c o u r s e of the text.
I will a pply the s emiotic approach to poetry
p r o p o s e d by Mich ael R i f f a t e r r e in the book
Semiotics of Eoetta
(1980) b e c a u s e it b a s i c a l l y c o n s i d e r s the concept of po etry as i n s e p a r a b l e from the concept of text (as a closed entity); and yet, the th eo r y is e l a s t i c enou g h to co nsider the literary p h e n o m e n o n to be "a d i a l e c t i c b e t w e e n text and r e a d e r " ( 0 i ). This t h e o r y t a k e s int o acc oun t th e fa cts that are " a c c e s s i b l e to the r e a d e r and are p e r c e i v e d in r e l a t i o n to the poem"(02). Thro ugh the r e s t r i c t i o n s of t hese two p o s t ulates, I b e l ieve R i f f a t e r r e ' s t h e o r y may g i v e a p r e c i s e acc ou nt of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c shiftfrom sight to insight, so r e c u r r e n t in F r o st 's poetry.
R i f f a t e r r e s e e s " i n d i r e c t n e s s " as p o e t r y ' s basic feature. All p o e t r y t a l k s about one thing through another. Thus, when one faces p o etry one ha s to bear in mind that it is an a c t i v i t y that h a p p e n s in at least two levels. On the one hand, we h a v e th e " l i t e r a r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of reality", or "m imesis", as R i f f a t e r r e p u t s it (0£). At this level every word is directly r e l a t e d to the th ing it s t a n d s for (l ang uag e is r e f e r e n t i a l ) and m e a n i n g can be app r e h e n d e d . S i n c e rea lity is in itse lf s omething q uite comp lex , at the m i m e s i s level the text c o n s t a n t l y sh ifts f ocu s and m u l t i p l i e s d e t a i l s in ord er to e n c o m p a s s t his natural c o m p l e x i t y . V a r i a t i o n and m u l t i p l i c i t y , thus, are the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mimesis. On the other hand, we h a v e that " s o m e t h i n g else", that o t he r level of disc o u r s e in which we can a p p r e h e n d the " s i g n i f i c a n c e " of the poem. The reader can p e r c e i v e ma ny p o e t i c s i g n s in a p o e m that point to that " s omething else", as t h e s e e l e m e n t s form a p a r t i c u l a r kind of unity, di fferent fr om the v a r i a t i o n of mimes is. R i f f a t e r r e says that p o e m s are, in fact, c h a r a c t e r i z e d by formal and sema nti c unity. So, he
d e f i n e s " s i g n i f i c a n c e " as "thi s formal and sem ant ic unity, which i n c l u d e s all the i n d i ces of i n d i r e c t i o n " (02).
The i n d i c e s of i n d i r e c t i o n (or u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s ) are all the signs that, in one way or another, threa t e n the mimes i s . R i f f a t e r r e n u m b e r s t hree p o s s i b l e ways of sema ntic i n d i r e c t i o n : D i s p l a c i n g (when one sign c h a nges from one meaning to a n o t h e r - as in m e t a p h o r and met onym y), d i s t o r t i n g ("When t h e r e is amb igui ty, c o n t r a d i c t i o n and nonsen se" ) and cr eating (when the space of the text is the agent for the crea t i o n of s i g n s out of e l e m e n t s which are dev oid of m ea ni ng o u t s i d e the c o n t e x t - as in sy mmetry, rhyme, assonance, etc.) (02). In a d d i t i o n to sema n t i c indirection, m i m esis can also be t h r e a t e n e d by i n c o n s i s t e n c y with v e r i s i m i l i t u d e or with a f r u s t r a t i o n of the r e a d e r ' s e x pectati ons. In one way or a not h e r , the reader p e r c e i v e s that the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s of the m i m e s i s level are i n t e g r a t e d into anot her system, ano ther p a r a d i g m , and that this o t h e r s y s t e m alt ers the mean i n g of the poem. The " i n t e g r a t i o n of s i g n s from the m i m e s i s level into th e h i g h e r level of s i g n i f i c a n c e is a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of semi o s i s " (04). The semiotic p r o c e s s is no thing mo re than the movem ent of s i g n s from one level of d i s c o u r s e to another.
A c c o r d i n g to Riffaterre, this p r o c e s s a 1 ways h a p p e n s du ring a sec ond s t a g e of reading. In a f i r s t - s t a g e of r e a d i n g (heuristic) the r e ader d e c o d e s the meaning of the poem, a p p r e h e n d i n g all the fact s that are stat ed at the m i m e s i s level, as well as the p r e s e n c e of the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s that s o m e h o w t h r e a t e n this mimesis. T h i s read i n g goes from top to bott on of
the page, and the re ader uses as input his lin gu ist ic c o m p e t e n c e (his a b i l i t y to u n d e r s t a n d the r e f e r e n t i a l i t y of language, i d e n t i f y i n g t r o p e s and u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s ) and his literary c o m p e t e n c e (fam i l i a r i t y with d e s c r i p t i v e systems, with themes, wi th h i s s o c i e t y ' s m y t h o l o g i e s and with other texts). In the s e c o n d ( r e t r o a c t i v e or h e r m e n e u t i c ) reading, the reader re views and c o m p a r e s element s, p e r f o r m i n g a stru ctu ral decoding, as he b e c o m e s a w a r e of the s t r u c t u r e s that gener a t e the text. At this s t a g e the reader p e r c e i v e s that the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s of the m i m e s i s level are " v a r i a n t s of the same st ructural matri x"( 06) .
The m a t r i x is a semantic given, v i s i b l e only t h r o u g h the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s of the mime s i s level. As R i f f a t e r r e expla ins, "The text f u n c t i o n s like a neur osis: as the m a t r i x is repress ed, the d i s p l a c e m e n t p r o d u c e s v a r i a n t s all t h r o u g h the text, just as s u p p r e s s e d s y m p t o m s break out s o m e w h e r e e l s e in the bod y" (i 9). It is wor th ment i o n i n g that the text is n o t h i n g more than the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the m a t r i x (a word or s e n t e n c e ) into more e l a b o r a t e forms. The m a t r i x is h ypothe tical, it is m e rely the a c t u a l i z a t i o n of a structure. It is as if " s i g n i f i c a n c e is sh ap ed like a dou ghnut, the hol e being either the m a t r i x of the h y p o g r a m or the h y p o g r a m as m a t r i x"(i3). The first a c t u a l i z a t i o n of the m a t r i x in the po em (u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y ) is c a l l e d "model" and will g o vern all the other ac t u a l i z a t i o n s . So, matrix , model, and text ar e v a r i a t i o n s of the same str ucture. If the text is me rely a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the m a t r i x into more e l a b o r a t e forms, it f u n c t i o n s like a per iphrasis.
The co mmon m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p oe ms result from the c o n f u s i o n bet ween m e a n i n g and si gni ficance. W h e r e a s meaning
is the s e m a n t i c a p p r e h e n s i o n of the m i m e s i s level of a poem, s i g n i f i c a n c e is r e l a t e d to the r e a d e r ' s ab ility to p e r f o r m the " l i t u r g y of a ritual - th e e x p e r i e n c e of a c i r c u i t o u s s e q u e n c e " (12). S i g n i f i c a n c e is g e n e r a t e d by a "detour" the text ma kes, as it m o v e s from m i m e s i s to semio sis. The gr eater the d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e s e two levels, the more d eveloped the text.
In any case, the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s of the m i m esis level are a l w a y s the keys to the p e r c e p t i o n of signific anc e. It is i m p o r t a n t to o b s e r v e that b e f o r e s i g n i f i c a n c e is app reh ended, the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s look like a s e r i e s of i n a p p r o p r i a t e se ma ntic data, m a king the text look like a g e n e r a l i z e d cata chr esi s. On the o t h e r hand, as the text b e c o m e s more de viant and un grammati cal, th e r e a d e r feels that the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of langua ge di min ish es. T h i s is due to the con cept of " o v e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n " , d e f i n e d with p r e c i s i o n by W i l l i a m Be aucham p:
O v e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e f e r s to m u l t i p l e m o t i v a t i o n s of language: it is the inte r s e c t i o n in a s i n g l e sign of two or more a s s o c i a t i v e chains, such that the sign has not only one re as o n for bein g act u a l i z e d , but two or three, or five. To the normal, l i n g u i s t i c links betw e e n wor ds (go vern ed by g r a m m a r and lexical d i s t r i b u t i o n ) are a dded the a d d i t i o n a l link s of s t y l i s t i c and prosodi c s t r uctures, as well as t hose c o n n e c t i n g the matr i x and its vari ants: thus s i g n s in p oems seem, d e s p i t e their frequent ob scurity, e s p e c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e and n e ces sary. (42)
By maki n g sig ns stro n g l y motivated,
o v e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n is r e s p o n s i b l e for the e x e m p l a r i n e s s of li t e r a r y di scourse, c o m p e n s a t i n g for the t e x t ' s cata chresi s. B e i n g a w a r e of t h ese conc epts, the reader may c o n c l u d e that s i g n i f i c a n c e is g e n e r a t e d by two semi o t i c operations: sign
p r o d u c t i o n (the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of mime tic signs into poetic si gns) an d text p r o d u c t i o n (the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n from m a t r i x to text). Let us b egin with the former.
The first o p e r a t i o n a l ways occu r s thr ou gh h y p o g r a m m a t i c d e r i v a t i o n ; that is, the sign is p o e t i c i z e d (it b e c o m e s r e l e v a n t to the p o e m ' s s i g n i f i c a n c e ) when it r e f e r s to a p r e e x i s t e n t word group, to a p a r a d i g m e l s e w h e r e (what R i f f a t e r r e c a l l s " h y p o g r a m " ), being, at the same time, a var iant of the t e x t ' s m a t r i x (otherwi se, the sign wou ld be only a s t y l i s t i c a l l y m a r k e d l e x e m e or syn tag m). The h y p o g r a m is "already a s y s t e m of s i g n s c o m p r i s i n g at least a p r e d i c a t i o n "(£3), and it may be p o t e n t i a l ( o b s e r v a b l e in la ngu age) or actual (observable in a p r e v i o u s text). By the same token, the poetic sign may be an idiolect ( o b s e r v a b l e w i thin the context of the text) or a c l a s s e m e ( o b s e r v a b l e r e g a r d l e s s of the given text). H y p o g r a m s are c l a s s i f i e d into t h r e e types: S e m e s and presupp o s i t i o n s , c l i c h e s
(or q u o t a t i o n s ) , and d e s c r i p t i v e systems.
The h y p o g r a m is formed "out of a w o r d ' s se mes a n d / o r p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s " when the p oet i c sign a c t u a l i z e s some of th e s e m e s a n d / o r p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of the kernel word of the h y p o g r a m , and this word may be in the text or n o t . As R i f f a t e r r e expl a i n s , "The s e m e m e of the kernel word fu nct ions like an e n c y c l o p e d i a of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n rela t e d to the me a ning of that w o r d " ( 2 6 ) . T h e s e a c t u a l i z a t i o n s s a t u r a t e the verbal sequence, p r e s e n t i n g what we could h a v e g a t h e r e d from a s i n g l e word. R i f f a t e r r e g i v e s the e x a m p l e of the word "fl ute " which p r e s u p p o s e s a flutist, e n t a i l s an audience, and c o n t a i n s semes
such as " m e l o d i o u s n e s s " ," r u s t i c i t y " (one kind of flute was P an's ), etc. He a l s o e x p l a i n s that in the n e o l o g i s m and in the r e v i v e d ar chai sm, th e n e w or c o n s p i c u o u s word repe a t s the semes and p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of its hypo gram, the word in the sta ndar d le xicon. T h ese w o r d s a r e not p e r c e i v e d only as words, but as a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n two forms: one marked (the n e o l o g i s m or a r c h a i s m ) , and one u n m a r k e d (the s y n o n y m or homolo gue ).
Stock e p i t h e t s also fall into this type of h y p o g r a m m a t i c d e r i v a t i o n . A stock epi thet is a "per m a n e n t l y or c o n v e n t i o n a l l y poet i c word that can be analyse d as a h y p o g r a m m a t i c d e r i v a t i v e , e.g. f l e e t - f o o t e d A c h i l l e s or rosy- f i n g e r e d Daw n" (2 7). A h i s t o r i c a l e s t h e t i c s y stem d e t e r m i n e s the s e l e c t i o n of t h e s e words, as well as their interp retations. So, u n l i k e co mmon a d j e c t i v e s , stock e p i t h e t s are w o rds which alr ead y e m b o d y an ideologic al ethos. Their p o e t i c i t y c o mes from a special r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e p i t h e t s and nouns: their meaning, c o n t r a s t i n g with the m e a n i n g of comm o n adjecti ves , are not a c c e s s o r y or con tex t d e t e r m i n e d , but a p e rmanent feature. That is why stock e p i t h e t s are poetic, no matter what noun they modify. T heir l iterary func t i o n is that of a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e marker, i nst e a d that of a d d i n g m e a n i n g to a word. They already imply a h ypogram, usua l l y a d e s c r i p t i v e system, and the a d j e c t i v e usua lly a c t u a l i z e s the s e m e s and p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of the nuc lea r word of the d e s c r i p t i v e system. As J u l i o P i n t o ex empl if ies,
When m o d i f y i n g the noun "coluna", for example, the a d j e c t i v e "ágil" is the echo of a t i m e l e s s metap hor , the one d e p i c t i n g Greek c o l u m n s as m a i d e n s (carya tid s), w h o s e s t a n d a r d d e s c r i p t i o n us u ally i n v o l v e s grace ful s l e n d erness. The h y p o g r a m is thus a d e s c r i p t i v e system, some of the
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of which are a c tuali zed in the ad jec tiv e, maki n g it fu nction as a m e l i o r a t i v e
sign. (22)
R i f f a t e r r e says that the linka ge between the poetic sign and the h y p o g r a m is s t r o n g e r in the case of w ords that a c t u a l i z e the s e m e s of the n u c l e a r word of the hypogram, since th e s e m e s are "the very co re of a w o r d ' s m e a n i n g "(3 i ). This is the b a s i c p r o c e s s thro u g h wh ich w o r d s that are usually perc e i v e d as " o r d i n a r y wo rds " b e c o m e poet i c in the text. Besides, since t h e s e w o r d s a c t u a l i z e semes, they b e c o m e a metonym of the kernel word, m a k i n g the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n poet ic signs and h y p o g r a m even stro n g e r .
C l i c h é s are "already a c t u a l i z e d in set forms within the r e a d e r ' s mind "(39), being part of our lin guistic com pete nce . As R i f f a t e r r e e x e m p lifies, the c o l l o c a t i o n of “fleur" and "abime" b e l o n g s to this c a t e g o r y of hyp ogra m, beca u s e of the s t e r e o t y p e d i m age of th e flower on the e dge of the abyss, which a c h i e v e d high p o p u l a r i t y duri n g the r o m a n t i c era, b e c a u s e of its an ti thes es. T h i s h y p o g r a m is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by st rong c o n t r a s t s such as l i t t l e n e s s X immensity, d e l i c a t e X rude, beauty X horror, c harm X da nger, etc. Thus, c l i c h é s also have the m e c h a n i s m of seme act u a l i z a t i o n .
A d e s c r i p t i v e s y s t e m is a "network of wo rds a s s o c i a t e d with one a n o ther a r ound a kernel word, in a c c o r d a n c e with the s e m e m e of that nue 1 e u s " <39). The linkage betw e e n these w o r d s is the kernel w o r d ' s sememe, which they all share. A c c o r d i n g to J u l i o Pinto, the d e s c r i p t i v e system ar ou nd "window", for examp l e , " c o m p r i s e s the ideas of opening, wall, view, etc.,
and e n t a i l s the o p p o s i t i o n s of in X out, s m a l l n e s s X vastness, i m p r i s o n m e n t X freedom, and so on"(E4).
The s e c o n d s e m i o t i c o p e r a t i o n r e s p o n s i b l e for the g e n e r a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n c e is the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n from m a t r i x to text. S i n c e the m a t r i x it self is never a c t u a l i z e d per s e , the text will try to exha u s t the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of v a r i a t i o n in order to e m p h a s i z e the l i n k a g e b e t w e e n what is implied and what is stated. The o p e r a t i o n of text p r o d u c t i o n is governed by two rules: c o n v e r s i o n and ex pansion. " E xpansion t r a n s f o r m s the c o n s t i t u e n t s of the m a t r i x s e n t e n c e into more c o m p l e x forms"<48). Its most c o mmon e x a m p l e s are the pe rip hrasi s, the extended m e t a p h o r , and the s i m p l e r e p e t i t i v e s e q u e n c e s (the amp 1 i f i c a t i o ), w h i c h w o u l d be in it self a sign s y m b o l i z i n g high emotional t e n s i o n , mo tion, pro gress, etc. E x p a n s i o n a l w a y s t r a n s f o r m s one sign i n t o se vera l e q u i v a l e n t signs. In most cases, t h e r e are g r a m m a t i c a l c h a n g e s in the c o n s t i t u e n t s of the model sentence, s i n c e p r o n o u n s turn into nouns, n ouns into g r o u p s and so on. In the amp 1 i f i c a t i o , the c o n s t i t u e n t s of the e x p a n s i o n seque n c e " g r o w lon g e r and longer and more and more complex, h e a ding for a s p e c t a c u l a r c l i m a x " ( 5 1 ) . This p r o c e s s m akes the read er a w are that the s e q u e n c e forms a tex tual unity. It is worth m e n t i o n i n g that a l l e g o r y , t r a n s f o r m i n g s i m p l e c o m p o n e n t s into c o m p l e x r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , is a visual form of exp an sion . A c c o r d i n g to R i f f a t e r r e , e x p a n s i o n is a l s o the prin cipal agent o p e r a t i n g to r e m o v e a r b i t r a r i n e s s from the more abstra ct lang u a g e forms, e s p e c i a l l y "fro m the g r a m m a t i c a l con n e c t i v e s " , t r a n s f o r m i n g them into images. The most comm o n " s u b s t i t u t e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of
a b s t r a c t into f i g u r a t i v e sign s is the met onym" ( 58 ) . Expansion, thus, is much mo re than an e n l a r g e m e n t of a lexeme into a s y n t a g m . It is a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e for the detour the reader has to
f o l l o w in ord er to be a w are of the i n v a r i a n c e in the variance. C o n v e r s i o n " t r a n s f o r m s the c o n s t i t u e n t s of the m a t r i x s e n t e n c e by m o d i f y i n g them all with the same factor"(63). S i n c e a h y p o g r a m a l w a y s has a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e orie nta tion , c o n v e r s i o n t r a n s m u t a t e s the h y p o g r a m ' s m a r k e r s (from p o s i t i v e to n e g a t i v e or vice versa), c h a n g i n g the c o n s t i t u e n t s of the mat rix s e n t e n c e . Th er efore, instead of c r e a t i n g a detour, c o nver sion c r e a t e s a formal unity. We can find the most common e x a m p l e of m a r k e r p e r m u t a t i o n in irony, wh ich does not involve, b e s i d e s the m a r k e r p e r m u t a t i o n , the sema n t i c t r a n s f e r that occu r s in the m e t a p h o r and me tonym. R i f f a t e r r e g i v e s the e x a mp le of c o n v e r s i o n in a B a u d e l a i r e p ro se poem in whic h the mi me s i s of mat ernity ( nor m a l l y posi t i v e ) is p r e s e n t e d in a code of m inus sign, r e p r e s e n t i n g sorrow. When c o n v e r s i o n a f f e c t s d e s c r i p t i v e systems, it p e r m u t â t e s the ma rk er of the kernel word, prod u c i n g therefore, th e t r a n s m u t a t i o n of all the other w ords of the system. When c o n v e r s i o n is comb i n e d with expansi on, it is not re lated to an e x t e r n a l hy pogram. In such cases, c o n v e r s i o n r e g u l a t e s the more c o m p l e x forms of exp an sion , whic h is limited "to t h ose more c o m p l e x fo rm s that also repeat f e a t u r e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the m a t r i x " ( 7 5 ) . T here is mark i n g wit hou t perm utation, s i nce t her e is no e x t e r n a l h y p o g r a m to oppose.
R i f f a t e r r e d e v o t e s an e n t i r e chap ter of his book to th e c o n cept of "I nterprétant", one of the most important c o n c e p t s r e l a t e d to the shift from m i m e s i s to semiosis. He quo tes the
d e f i n i t i o n of i n t e r p r e t a n t from the Amer i c a n p h i l o s o p h e r Peirce, who b r o u g h t forth the idea:
A sign s t a n d s far. s o m e t h i n g to the idea which it p rodu ces, or modifies.. . That for which it s t a n d s is call e d its o b i ect ; that which it conve ys, its roeaQiotg; and the idea to which it g ive s rise, its iQtenp.r.etaDt ■ <8i)
R i f f a t e r r e r e s t r i c t s the term, a p p l y i n g it only for si gns whose f u n c t i o n is "to g u i d e the read e r in his c o m p a r a t i v e or stru ctu ral r e a d i n g " < 8i ) . They are s i g n s wh ich repr ese nt the e q u i v a l e n c e of two " s i g n i f y i n g s y s t e m s ”, w o r k i n g like puns, perti nen t to "two c o d e s or texts". He a l s o c l a s s i f i e s i n t e r p r e t a n t s into lexematic and t e x t u a l . Tex tua l i n t e r p r e t a n t s are m ediating texts, "either quo ted in the p o e m or a l l u d e d to"(8i). These t e xts contain a model, la ying down the rule of the p o e m ' s idiolect. Lexe matic i n t e r p r e t a n t s (or dual signs) are m e d i a t i n g words, whic h g e n e r a t e "two t e x t s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h i n the poem (or one text that must be u n d e r s t o o d in two diff e r e n t ways), or else they p r e s u p p o s e two h y p o g r a m s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y " ( 8 i ). The dual sign may be u n d e r s t o o d as an " e q u i v o c a l word s i t u a t e d at the point where two s e q u e n c e s of s e m a n t i c and formal a s s o c i a t i o n s i n t e r s e c t "(86). In eit her case, the o t h e r text to whi ch the dual sign also p o i n t s to is very c l o s e at hand, s i n c e "the s e q u e n c e is mi xed with the one in which the e q u i v o c a l word righ t l y b e l o n g s " (86). The a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the dual sign may be due to h o m o p h o n y with anot h e r word e l s e w h e r e , or it may be due to a c o i n c i d e n c e betw e e n the dual sign and the othe r word both in sound and morpho log y.
the poem: a d e r i v a t i o n t akes p lace "that a c t u a l i z e s as d e s c r i p t i o n or n a r r a t i o n the two c o m p e t i n g meanings, one after the other, or a l t e r n a t e l y " (91). In other words, if this d e r i v a t i o n did not exist, the dual sign would lose its effect. So, to exist, the dual sign g e n e r a t e s a text. In other cas es (in the c a s e s of h y p o g r a m g e n e r a t i n g dual signs), the ghost text (the w o r d ' s o th er r e f e r e n c e ) must be de du c e d by the reader. It is u s u a l l y a po te n t i a l c l i c h e wh ich is part of the read e r ' s c o m p e t e n c e . In t h i s case, the dual sign re fers to a h y p o g r a m
infer r e d by the reader.
A t i t l e can also be a dual sign. The role of the t i t l e is “to in form the re ader and f a c i l i t a t e acce s s to the text by s t a t i n g its subject, its genre, or its code"(1 00) . When the title, at the same time, i n t r o d u c e s its own po em and re fers to a n o t h e r text o u t s i d e the p o e m (e xplaining w h ere the s i g n i f i c a n c e of its own p o e m is located), it is fun c t i o n i n g like a dual sign. Dual t i t l e s can point to anot h e r text which shar e s the same m a t r i x of its own poem, or even point to a text not as a text, but as a code ( a r e p o s i t o r y of lexic on and gram mar of a c o n v e n t i o n a l dis c o u r s e ) . In the case of the textual i n t e r p r e t a n t , "ins t e a d of bein g s y m b o l i z e d by a word refe r r i n g to the text in which the rea der is to find his h e r m e n e u t i c clues... the i n t e r p r e t a n t is a fragment of that text actually quoted in the p o e m it s e r v e s to i n t e r p r e t "(109), as for example, an epigraph.
At this point, it is clear that, alth o u g h at the m i m e s i s level the poem s e e m s to add i n f o r m a t i o n s to i n f o r m a t i o n s (meaning is a p p r e h e n d e d t h r ough the p o s i t i o n of words), at the level of s i g n i f i c a n c e we have the same i n f o rmation being
r e p e a t e d . As R i f f a t e r r e puts it, "the mim etic text is s y n t a g m a t i c , the s e m i o t i c one is p a r a d i g m a t i c " (89). It also seems c l e a r that the r e a d e r ' s role is the most important in the s e m i o t i c t r a n s f e r from m i m e s i s to semiosis. The whole p r o cess h a p p e n s in the r e a d e r ' s mind, and it is the reader who p e r c e i v e s t h e s e m i o t i c c i r c u l a r i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of poetic texts. Althou gh he p e r f o r m s a s t r u c t u r a l d e c o d i n g of poe tic language, he still p e r c e i v e s the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s as stum b l i n g b l o c k s and still t e n d s to read the p o e m obed ient to m i m esis to get rid of d i s t o r t i o n s . That is why p o e m s are "endlessly r e r e a d a b l e and f a s c i n a t i n g " ( i66) . They are c o n s t a n t l y being reso l v e d and u n r e s o l v e d . Besi des, the fact that "any u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y within the p o e m is a sign of g r a m m a t i c a l i t y e l s e w h e r e " (i64) leads to the fact that p o e t i c l a n g u a g e is like a game. It is also important to o b s e r v e that s i n c e the s e m i o t i c unit is the text itself, the r e a d e r ' s d e c o d i n g of the text is li mited b e c ause of the po em's s a t u r a t i o n by the s e m a n t i c and formal featu res of its m a t r i x <165). T h i s c o n t r a s t s with the many poss i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of p o e m s at the m i m e s i s level.
The po et ic l a n g u a g e as a "word game" also p r e s u p p o s e s the p r e s e n c e of the author, the send er of a message.
In t h e c a s e of p o e m s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by nonsense, one comm o n type of r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t ween h y p o g r a m and text is called " s c r a m b l i n g " . In such cases, the words, p h r ases or s e n t e n c e s of the h y p o g r a m are found in the text with their o r d e r s changed.
<
T h i s is a ty pical case which c o n f i r m s the in tention of the a u t hor, a s t r o n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the word game.
In his final chapter R i f f a t e r r e a n a l y s e s some m e c h a n i s m s of r e a d e r - p e r c e p t i o n which are typical of poetry. He a n a l y s e s th e p e r c e p t i o n of a text as member of a g enre (and i l l u s t r a t e s th e point with the p r ose poem), humor as a text- f o r m a n t , n o n s e n s e as an art ifac t, and genr e induced obsc uri ty
I
(that is, when o b s c u r i t y r e s u l t s "f rom an i n t e r f e r e n c e of the g e n r e ' s s t r u c t u r e s " )i50. S i n c e t h e s e a n a l y s e s are not di rectly r e l e v a n t to the pr esent d i s s e r t a t i o n , I will not be co ncerned w i t h them.
R i f f a t e r r e p r o v i d e s the reader with many examp 1es of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of his t h eory to f ragments of Fre n c h poems. Due to th e d i f f i c u l t y to p e r c e i v e s u b t l e semioti c p r o c e s s e s in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s of the poems, I have chosen to i l lustrate R i f f a t e r r e ' s m e thod with W i l l i a m B e a u c h a m p ' s a n a l y s i s of a poem by E m i l y Dick i n s o n . B e a u c h a m p ' s a n a l y s i s is ba sed on R i f f a t e r r e ' s t h e o r y .
Ended, ere it beg an
-The t itle was s c a r c e l y told
When the p r e f a c e p e r i s h e d from c o n s ciousness, The story, unreveal ed.
Had it been mine, to print ! Had it been yours, to read! That it was not our p r i v i l e g e The interdict of God.
With the a b s e n c e of the initial orie n t a t i o n p r o v i d e d by a title, B e a u c h a m p b e g i n s his a n a l y s i s by listing the d a t a we p e r c e i v e at the m i m e s i s level: v a r i o u s ellipses, a series of s e m a n t i c a l l y rela ted w o r d s (title, preface, story, print, read), a s e r i e s of a n t i t h e s e s (ended/begun, mine/yo urs ,
p r i v i l e g e / i n t e r d i c t ) and the p r e s e n c e s of a first -pe rso n narr ator (mine) and of an a d d r e s s e e (yours). He also calls our a ttention to s o m e u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t i e s : s o m e t h i n g cannot end b e f o r e it begi ns, the m y s t e r y of the a d d r e s s e e ' s identity, and the u n e x p l a i n e d fact of the st ory be ing under interdict.
The two most importan t que stions ("What ended b e f o r e it b e g a n ? " and "Why did it end"?) are answered in our s e c o n d - s t a g e r e a d i n g - more precise ly, in lines 2, 3, 4 and line 8 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The pronoun "it" of the first question is easily a s s o c i a t e d with the "title", "p reface", and "story" (the first t w o n o u n s are c o m p o n e n t s of the third). In fact, all of them are c o m p o n e n t s of "book", which is a c t u a l i z e d in its s e m e s and p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . Thus, every line of the poem c o n t a i n s a seme or p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of book (it) and all of them are s y s t e m a t i c a l l y negated. The s tory of the poem does not have a b e g i n n i n g nor an end; its t i t l e - in ste ad of announcing, ide ntif yi ng the book - is b a r e l y told; its p r e f a c e does not e x p lain or introduce, and the s tory is not a rev e l a t i o n , but it is "unrev eale d". Besides, the book r e c e i v e s an inter dict in stead of a permission.
The real clue c o m e s when two a n t i t h e s e s are linked by the reader: m i n e / y o u r s and p r i n t/read. The first p r e s e n t s the s p e a k e r and th e ad dressee, and the sec ond t r a n s f o r m s them into a w r i t e r / s e n d e r and a r e a d e r / r e c e i v e r in an u n r e a l i z e d act of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . B e a u c h a m p c o m m e n t s that
. . .given what we know is one of the common t e n o r s for which c o m m u n i c a t i o n imag es s erve as ve hicl es; and gi ven the long literary t r a d i t i o n of c o m m i t i n g a speci al type of e m o t i o n a l l y char g e d m e s s a g e to c o l l e c t i o n s of lyric poe ms (books with
title, p r e f a c e . . . ) that are a d dressed to a special o ther - we are led to c o n c l u d e that the story in ques t i o n is a love story. The spe ake r is a lover; the addr e s s e e , a beloved. A love story in book code. <4i)
B e a u c h a m p goes on sayi n g that the love story is o v e r d e t e r m i n e d by the fact that we h ave a strong p r o h i b i t i o n of t h i s act of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . S i n c e in lit er ary trad i t i o n (notably in that of the R o m a n t i c n i n e t e e n t h centu ry) the most common s u b j e c t of i n t e r d i c t i o n is i m p o s s i b l e love, the love in t h i s poem is c o n d e m n e d by taboo, a love that n eeds to remain unreve aled . B e a u c h a m p puts all this data in R i f f a t e r r e ' s terms:
Th e m a t r i x of the poem is som e t h i n g like "forbidden love". The model is "story", e x p a n d e d by v a r i o u s me tonyms, which m a k e it a fu nctio nal s y n o n y m of book, u n w r i t t e n b e c a u s e u n a u t h o r i z e d . The p o e m is base d on tw o hypo gram s: the first is form e d from the s e m e s and p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of "book", s a t u r a t i n g th e p o e m from b e g i n n i n g to end. As B e a u c h a m p p o i n t s out:
In our poem, it is as if the word "book" were l ogi c a l l y d i s sected, first into its material, s e q u e n t i a l parts: the title, the preface, the story itself; then into its social aspects: the writing, the pr int ing, the reading. (43)
The s e cond h y p o g r a m r e fers to the c l i c h e "love sto ry", whi ch g e n e r a t e s the m a t r i x (love) and the model (story). T h e s e h y p o g r a m s are thus r e s p o n s i b l e for the p r o d u c t i o n of p o e t i c signs. As for the tex tua l pr od uction, t h i s poem p r e s e n t s " e x p a n s i o n " and " conversio n". On one hand, the poe m c l e a r l y e x p a n d s the m a t r i x " f o r b i d d e n love" into more e l a b o r a t e for ms (lines 2, 3, 4, for example, r e s t a t e what is sta ted in line
