Byron, Napoleon, and Thorough-Bred Mares

Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg MONIKA FLUDERNIK Byron, Napoleon, and Thorough-Bred Mares Symbolism and Semiosis in Eugene O'Neill's „A Touch of the Poet" Originalbeitrag erschienen in: Sprachkunst: Beiträge zur Literaturwissenschaft 21 (1990), S. [335]-352 BYRON, NAPOLEON, AND THOROUGH-BRED MARES SYMBOLISM AND SEMIOSIS IN EUGENE ONEILLS >A TOUCH OF THE POET By Monika Flu dernik (Vienna) As is now generally acknowledged, Saussures revolutionary impact primarily derives from his insight into the play of differences that allows the constitution of both linguistic units and linguistic value. Whereas Saussure, naturally enough, concentrated on the level of the linguistic unities themselves, the murky area of differencing and semiosis has been the focus of more recent philosophical debates that center on the concept of diffirance. The application of linguistic and philosophical theories to the study of literature typically slips into a too easy transgression of the levels of description. Such sleight of hand is a built-in flaw already perceptible in Saussures original formula- tions and examples. Thus, while Saussure is primarily concerned with establishing the unity of the phoneme and the lexeme, he also treats at length the opposition of singulars and plurals (Natht: Niichte) 9, and at different points discusses the semantic processes triggered by compound verbs (defizire)2). Indeed, there is a greater confusion of levels in Saussure than there is in todays linguistics, which takes care to keep apart the levels of sound (phonology, phonetics), syllables, morphemes, words (morphology; lexicology), and of the sentence (syntax). Semantics alone is allowed to span the lexical, morphological and syntactic levels 3). Likewise, with the philosophical model, there is little indication of the precise locus of differance. Most typically, tlifferance is seen to emerge in the differencing process on the signifier level. Saussure, as Derrida himself notes4) (1982 :10), recognizes a play of dif- 1) Compare FERDINAND DE SAussuRE, Course in General Linguistics, New York 1966, pp.122, 159, or the example of Gast/Giste, pp. 83-85. In the original, FERDINAND DE SAussuRE, Cows de linguistique generale, publie par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger, edition critique priparie par Tullio de Mauro, Paris 1972, pp.168, 217, 119-121. Compare ibid., Course in General Linguistics, p.129 (Part Two, VI, 2); Cours de Linguistique generale, p.177-179. ) The phonological level is presupposed as merely instrumental, representing the morphemes etc. another reflection of the continued logocentric tradition in linguistic study. 4) See J./La:1.m DERRIDA, Differance, in: Margins of Philosophy, Chicago 1982, p.10. 336 Monika Fludernik ferences on both levels. Signifiers arc in opposition just as concepts are in opposition, and a linguistic unit — which combines the signifier (the phoneme, the lexeme etc.) with the concept (the signified) — is established at double differentiation. It presupposes the unit of the signifier (on the basis of the differences that underlie emic unities) and likewise constitutes a sememic unit on the signified level by a process of double differentiation on the axes of similarity and conti- guity. The signified, for instance of limpid, is determined by its relation to the word field clear (lucid etc.), and its individuation from these quasi-synonyms, similars, relies equally on associative context, i. e. on possible contiguities (c. g. limpid water, lucid ideas ...). The meaning of a signifier cannot be divorced from its potential pragmatic use 5). Indead, with Saussurc as with Derrida, the point is precisely that differance — the process of creating significative unities — emerges as omnipresent and con-stitutive and hence, by definition, necessarily eludes local- ization and definition. The question remains whether and how one will be justified in applying such a wholesale concept to literature and, if so, whether this will not give rise to the sorry impasses encountered in text and story grammars of yore, so justly rebuked for oversimplification and illicit conflation of textual levels6). The model I wish to propose here attempts to apply the pattern of linguistic semiosis, as analyzed by Saussurc on the phonological and morphological levels, to the textual level of the play as a whole. Whereas in the Saussurcan tradition, linguistic units are constituted through the process of differentiation within a system of distinctive features, in the application that I propose, on the contrary, units of interpretative meaning are established through repetition and difference, and these significative entities established on the textual level are then patterned during the interpretative process in quasi-syntactical form. The semantic syntax envisaged here would be subjective and narratological, in the sense of combining diverse textual features into a story-line (chain) of signification. When a reader recognizes several strands of verbal echoes in a literary text s/he will arrive at this pattern of "significemess by finding lexical identities and semantic similarities between different words that keep recurring in the text. That is to say that — on the background of a textual flux of seemingly straightforward dialogue and stage-directions — semantic clusters will stand out, and these give rise to interpretative strategies which attempt to combine these clusters into a meaningful correlation signifying meta-textual 'meaning". Thus, for instance in our text, the eponymous quality of having a touch of the poet, the set of references to Byron, the recurrent apostrophization of Napoleon, and the numerous allusions to nature lend themselves to a reading in which the realistic plot, which is staged in concrete form, allegorically points beyond itself to a higher level of interpretation, for which these key words and images serve as sign(ifier)s. In contradistinction to purely linguistic processes, however, the original differentiation between such key 5) For a reference to this discussion sec SAUSSURE, Course in General Linguistics, p.112 (Part Two, chapter IV); Cour: dc Linguistiquc generale, p.156. In this case that of the sentence on the one hand, and of the text on the other. Byron, Napoleon, and Thorough-Bred Mares 337 phrases already entails interpretative moves because it is necessarily based on a literary competence that will isolate only those recurring elements that seem inter- pretatively significant. Even the decision of what counts, or does not, as a repetition will be monitored by a cultural pre-understanding of literary themes and what they are likely to consist in. Uneasy distinctions of whether a specific word does or does not belong to a particular image cluster will also have recourse to over-all interpretative standpoints. Thus, in our text for instance, I have decided to col- lapse near-synonyms such as 'airs (and graces)" and "pretense" into one key phrase, and I treat references to being "beaten" and 'broken" within the same cate- gory. I also posit that "queer" and "crazy" and "mad" constitute one "significeme," and I do this ultimately because I can link this cluster to others in an interpretative move that requires passages containing these words to signify within the syntax that I propose. It is therefore within the system of meta-textual signification that image clusters acquire their distinctive unity, in parallel to phonetic or morphemic unities that acquire value only within the system of the language. Whereas in Ian- guage this system — as a precondition for the establishing of a viable linguistic code of communication — has to be stable, significant:, on the contrary, are stable only within the syntax of one possible reading and can potentially be created and deconstructed at will. No reading can possibly include all recurring elements of the text so that different readings necessarily rely on the constitution of different clusters. The text, however, limits the play of semiosis by the prior positing of textual elements. However, all clusters have to have a sufficient textual hold. If a word occurs once only within the text, or recurs in contexts that do not lend themselves to semantic or interpretative alignment, this will — within the rules of literary competence — be regarded as an insufficient basis for prompting interpretative moves7). I will presently illustrate these points in my discussion of ■A Touch of the Poet(. Although my analysis of O'Neill's play makes theoretical claims about semi- otic processes, it will inevitably offer a reading of, or an angle on, the text in its own right, Indeed, the image clusters and symbols on which my arguments draw have so far received much too little attention in the O'Neill literature and will therefore require some explication and illustration. In the following I will therefore tread the tight rope of attempting to do two supposedly incompatible things, namely to pursue a theoretical argument as well as to present a (seemingly traditional) explication de talc on a neglected aspect of one of O'Neill's plays. I should also state outright that the verbal echoes I will be looking at occur both in the dialogue and in the stage-directions of ,A Touch of the Poet, and that this will necessarily pre- dispose me in favour of a literary, textual reading. However, such an approach need not necessarily be incompatible with theatrical scholarship, since the import of the symbolic patterns would of course have to show in productions of the play and, if not entirely recuperable from the staging, sufficient hints in the production 7) Examples are the ninety or so references to God in >A Touch of the Poet4, practically all of which are used in exclamations and curses. 338 Monika Fludernik should at least help the audience to appreciate some of the major meta-textual implications. Many of the verbal echoes have visual counterparts and are under- lined in the dialogue so that much less gets lost than one would expect.

Load more