Semiotic of Symtrolic Mode in Interpreting Mythology in English Poetry

This paper is primarily based on the assumption that we need theories of literature in order to interpret the literary texts and explain literature as a unique form of communication. The so far traditional efforts of treating literary study as an intuitive analysis has contributed to the harsh criticism on the srudy ol literatu re as merely ' the reading and understanding of literature'. Literature teaching has given too much emphasis on the enjoying and understanding ofa literary piece, that is to say that merely by understanding the meaning of the language of a text, its cultural ref'erences, one is said to be in a position to respond critically to that text*thus there is no need for interpretation beyond that. Therefore, this paper is an attempt to interpret a literary text (mythology in English poetry) beyond its literal level by the use of semiotics of symbolic mode approach which allows the intertextual and intratextual analysis.

subJect on curriculum, wliich has led to the neglect of features which mark liierature as a discourse and an area ofstudy demanding different techniques ofdescription and different pedagogical approaches.
There might be nothing wrong with such an effort except for some_ par- ticular reasons, First, teachers in English speaking context may still endeavor to hold the usefulness principle as far as the literature program is designed carefully for children based on their needs, interests, and cognitive development.But we cannot expect too much that some literary works may still be attractive to children today who have enjoyed more 'fascinating ' presentation ofexperience via television or movie, Besides, we must be aware that we do not expect to treat literature in this way when we are facing the adult students such as the university students.It would be silly to think that university students even in non Englishcontext can learn something from Dickens' Great Expectations or sheridan's school for Scan- dal.Second, as Lotman (1970) pointed out that literature is aproduct of minimally two overlapping systems ; linguistics and literature so that it can be considered as a 'secondary modeling system'.Hence the system of literature is supralingual rvherein the recipient,of the linguistic message must firstly know the linguistic code in order to interpiet a text.That is to say that a iiterary reader must have the knowledge of literary code besides the linguistic code used to convey the message in the text.At this point, it becomes obvious that literature cannot be used as a language communication model for language students without causing some dis- orders.we cannot surely use the following Shakespeare's word class conversion of the noun 'boy' to a verb as cited by Widdowson (1975): "And I shall see some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness", Jacobson (1960) states the difference between the literary or poetic and the daily language as follows: " the poetic func- tion projects the principle ofequivalence from the axis ofselection into the axis of combination".The consequence is clear-cut, expression such as alive he drive can be accepted in literary language but not in daily one.Third, although it is true that the majority of modern critics make a distinction between the enjoyment of literature reading and interpretation (see Newton, 1990), at the university level we must carefully separate the two and put more emphasis on the interpretation.Literature teaching should provide students with the ability of recognizing the quality of liter- ary works (literariness) and try to analyze the patterns or the universal concepts of literature.
The literature study in the twentieth century has undergone a series of devel-Muh'oso.Semiotics of Svnbolit: Mtttle in Intrytrcting Mt'ttnlogt 65 opments focusing on at least three aspects ir) autonomy ofthe text such as held by Formalism and Structuralism (b) the mimeticism of the text such as held by Marxism (3) the reader's role held by the so-called receptional aesthetics.Those theo- ries have lately developed into some versions such as the schema theory (Cook,   1994) that fbcuses on the three schemata of the readers; the text schemata, the world schemata, and the language schemata.Each of the theories has certainly some weaknesses and quite possibly that each one serves as a complementary to the others.This article is designed to use the Semiotic approach of symbolic mode in which a text is not merely interpreted on the basis of its literal meaning but its symbolical aspect (the message).Semiotics is chosen here for two reasons.First, ever since the publication of Eco's Theory of Semiotics \197 6), the question of the truth has been neglected.Literature is obviously characterized by what Spet (in Fokkema and Kunne lbsch, 1994) called "the third type of truth" since, as a matter of fact, literature very frequently informs us many "fantastic things" which refer- ence cannot be approached by logics such as ' a speaking horse in Tolstoy's Kholstomer'.By rejecting the concept of 'referential fallacy', Eco (1976 58-59)   decides to include literature into one of the objects studied in Semiotics.Second, Semiotics opens the possibility of interpreting a text on the basis of intertextuality as well as intratextuality since it covers a wide range of disciplines'

THE SYMBOLIC MODE OF MYTH IN ENGLISH POETRY
Morris wrote in his Foundations of the Theory of Sign (1938: l) that "hu- man civilization is dependent upon signs and system of signs, and the human mind is inseparable from the functioning of signs-if indeed mentality is not to be identified with such functioning".This leads him as to believe that the concept of sign may prove as fundamental to the sciences of man as the concept of atom has been for the physical sciences or the concept of cell for the biological sciences (1938: 42).This belief seems not to be too exaggerated if we notice what appears to be an agreement among the semioticians, defined more as those who label their works as semiotic such as Eco, Sebeok, etc. rather tn'an those who in fact practice semiotic studies but do not label them so, that the subject matter of semiotics covcrs the whole range of cultural phenomena including the phenomena produced by aninrals (zoosemiotics) and flora (phytosemiotics), We can easily notice in many rvalks of our daily life, be they political, economical, or social -cultural,,men still employ largely what in general we call 'sign'.The poiiticians speak of their programs and messages via signs hence there we meet the emblems, coat of arms, flags as the signs related to a politicalparty and ideology.It may be curious enough that in the same time we can recognize easily that some of the 'signs' used by modern people are existentially the same with those used in the long past.Myth, for instance, has been used by modern people surprisingly as "communicating signs" as the ancient people did.The difference only lies on the content but the substance remains the same.Sorel in the Reflexions on violence (1914) considers that the world labour strike is a myth fcrr it represents the motivation and supports for the Iabours.
Despite the well-known acceptance on the standard definition of semiotics as the 'general theory of sign' (see Sebeok, 1986; Deely, 1982), the meaning of sign itself indicates the problems commonly faced by the semioticians.peirce (19g5)   di vides sign into three kinds (a) icon : a sign that refers to the object that it denotes by virlue of characters of iis own (b) index : a sign wliich refers to the object that it denotes by virtue of bging really affected by that object (c) symbol : a sign which refers ro irs object that it denotes by virtue of a law usually an association of general ideas.Here it is obvious that Peirce has used the term 'sign' as the genus generallisimum of semiotics, symbol is said to be the subclass of sign.whereas in fact' manv people call symbols what others call signs, but fewer people who cail signs what others call symbols (seeEco, 1986).In other words, concerning the couple symbol/sign, the first term is the marked one.This explains a lot of things.
First, in the Peircean sense, symbols are expressions that mean directly and univocally what they are designed to mean such as the scientific symbols in chem- istry, mathematics orphysics.'symbols', in Peircean sense, are then those conven- tional 'signs' whose meanings are not vague and pre-estabrished.Second, symbols are often associated with the indirect meaning or an additional intended mean- ing that senrences may have (Grice, 1957).The sentence " I saw your wife in a hott:l with a young man" cannot be interpreted literaily.but must go beyond the prima facie hence meaning " your wit'e was unfaithful to you".Third, saussure drtlned symbols as "icons" ir the Peircean dichotomy of sign while Hjelmself included diagrams and games into the symbolic system (1943).According to Eco (1916), Saussure and Hjelmself spoke in fact of signs ruied by ratio difficilis where the expression maps.according to pre-established projection rules, some features Mulyoso, Serniotics of'st,mbolic Mocle irt IrxtrPretitxs Mvthc,logt' 67 of the corresponding coutent.In this sense.we can call a geographical map as symbol for once we alter, for example, the border between Indonesia and Malay- sia, we can forecast what would happen in the real world.Fourth, many people associate symbols with metaphors, allegories, and other tropes.Wahab ( 1990) uses Cirlot's dictionary of symbols in order to help him reveal the meaning of 'univer- sal metaphors'.Thus, a metaphor concerning darkness can be revealed by check- ing the meaning of the symbol 'darkness' in many cultures.
We usually can notice easily that in rhetorics and literature, the flouting of the four conversational maxims (Grice, 1975) can be used to create certain effects from the addressee.Metaphors, irony, hyperboles and such tropes violate the maxim of quality since they do not tell the truth (literally).When Khairil Anwar said " Aku ini binatang jalang", he literally lied for he could never be a wild animal.Yet, in facing such a blatant case of lying, the addressee normally faces no problem and can recognize that the poet probably intended to say something else.In fact, many metaphors can be disarnbiguated rvithout vagueness.The rnetaphor concerning darkness is an example, we can know from the context that the meaning is "sad- ness" without looking onto the traditional symbolism which will even lead to a wrong path for in Cirlot ( 197l:75-76), darkness symbolizes the primigenial chaos, not -eloom, On the other hand, a reader may not rely on any pre-established rules when facing such d text as the following lines of Milton's L Allegro : Hence loathed Melancholy Of Cerberus and blackest Midnight born, In Stygian cave forlorn 'Mongst homid shapes, and shrieks, and sights unholy, Find out some uncouth cell, Where brooding Darkness spreads his jealous wings, The text can be approached in two ways.First, at the surface level we can start with the figure Melancholy, Any reader who has no stock of encyclopedia concerning Melancholy , Cerberus, Stygian cave might still be able to grasp a sense that ' this Melancholy was born of Cerberus and blackest Midnight in a cave called Stygia where there were horrid shapes, shrieks, and sights'.But such a too literal interpretation may be made more sensible by a reader with enoughencyclopedia of Melancholy, cerberus, and Stygian cave.Babb (in carey and Fowrer, 1968) points out that there are two opposed Renaissance attitudes toward melancholy.The first, originating in Galenic medicine, viewed it as a source of stupidity, fearfulness and illusions.The second, originating in Aristole's problemata xxx stressed that all who have become eminent in philosophy, poetry, or the arts have been of melancholy temperament.The next encyclopedia that the writer must work upon is the Greek mythology of cerberus and Styx (stygian cave).In Greek my- thology, cerberus was told in the story of Hercules as a three-headed hell -hound whose throat bristled with serpe nts.He was the guardian of the abode of pluto on the banks of the stygian lake (Pluto's kingdom).vrgil once wrote that Aeneas heard shrieks which came from the souis of dead children as he passed the cave.At this stage, the reader will also be aware that the parentage of Melancholy as the child of cerberus and the blackest midnight is merely Milton's invention.At the surface level , a reader may still be able to grasp the sense ofthe text.
However, the fact that we often finci such a text aiiuding to mythology may convince us that there is something beyond the use.This brings us to the second kind of interpretation that will be labeled "symbolic mode" (Eco,19g6).practi- cally, symbolic mode is characterized by the interpreter's pragmatic decision to interpret the text symbolically.The pragmatic decision produces at the semantic level a new sign function, by associating new contentas far as possible, undetermined and vague-with expression already corelated to a coded content.This is especially applicable to a texr such as mythology in English poetry for the text, when the mode is no{ realized interpretively, remains endowed with sense at its literal or figurative sense.Eco ( 1986) has shown that in the modern aesthetic experience, the possible contents are suggested by the co-text and by the intertextual traditions.The interpreter does not intend to discover an external truth but he makes the encyclopedia work its best.unlike the mystical experience in which symbolic contents are suggested by a preceding tradition and the interpreter is convinced that they are not cultural units but referents, aspects of an extrasubjective and cx tracultut'll reality.
Thus we must firstly operate our encyclopedia (the co-rext and the intertextual traditions) in a progressive rnanne r during the symbolic interpretation of the mythology in English poetry, That is to say that the possible new contents are not pre-MuLvoso, Sentiotics of 51tn7fi61i, Mode in Intrpreting Mvtholog,-69 estabiished (even according to rhetorical rules) but created during the progress of intelpretation.In interpreting the myth of Cerberus in L'Allegro we can start with the co-text .Milton describes the dog as the parent of Melancholy together with the blackest midnight .If we relate this with the key words 'horrid shapes, shrieks, Darkness, uncouth cell, night raven', we are building an image of blackness, dark- ness which are the attributes given to Melancholy.But this is not sufficient to understand the meaning of the myth Cerberus in this poem.We must do an intertextual analysis.In the beginning of the twin poem Il Penseroso , Melancholy is described as black but in esteem such as Prince Memnon's sister, Himera: Hai I divinest Melancholy.

Whose saintiy visage is too bright
To hit the sense of human sight And therefore t0 our weaker view O'erlaid with black staid wisdom's hue Black, but such as in esteem, Prince Memnon's sister might beseem, Or that stared Ethiop queen that strove To set her beauty's praise above The sea nymphs, and their powers offended.Thus here Melancholy is described as black but beautiful different from in L'Allegro where the blackness of Melancholy is horrible.Melancholy blackness refers to that of Himera (prince Memnon's sister ) or the Ethiop queen (Cassio- peia) who was changed into a constellation (star) because she claimed to be more beautiful than the Nereids (sea nymphs).Then we have to look up at Babb who distinguishes two Rennaisance attitudes to melancholy which can be summarized as the damned melancholy (the source of stupidity, fearfulness and illusion) and divine melancholy (poets are of melancholy temperament).The meaning of the twin poems clearly support these opposed attitudes to melancholy.In L' Allegro, Milton rejects Melancholy (because of the terible darkness) and preferred to lollow Euphrosyne, the heart-easing Mirth as the symbol of youth and jollity.If we follow Dorian (in Carey and Fowler, i 968) who suggested that the poems are the autobiographical record of Miiton that is whether he should suppress either l0 TEFLIN JoLrrnal, Volume X Number l, August t999 the lighter or serious side of his nature, as man or as poet, we can conclude that in L' Allegro, Milton berieves that rrving in righter manner as man is better.Hr;;;;; concluded in the rast rine of this poem "Mirth with thee , I mean to live,,.whereas in Il Penseroso, Milton preferred a rife as a poet.He considered the vain deluding joys lMirth) as the brood of folry without father bred.Therefore, he concluded in the last lines that " these preasures Meranchory give, and I with thee wiil choose to lrve".It is now obvious by contrasting the brackness of Melanchoty in the two poems (representing the damnecl and the divine merancholy), tt e mitt cerberus -symbolizes the evil genius that gives birth to poetic genius.This is in line with the Neoplatonrc doctrine which saw the dog as the symbor of the evil genius (cirrot, 1971 42).
Since the symbolic mode interpretation uses the intertextual and intratextual analysis, rhe rarget is then to find the symbolic meaning of myths in mythorogy so that finally we can construcr the semiotic system oimytr,oroiy in nnjrsn poetry.
The procedu'es are st.rted with the meaning of each myth in one individual work and then relatcd to the meaning of the sai'e myth in other worts 1"ven or,iiff"r.n,writers) befbre we finaily determine the functlon of the myth.'Letus compare the myth of Proserphine ih the following three poems: Paradise Lost (Milton) Rhymes on the Road (Moore) Tis fbr the theft of Enna's flower from the earth These urchins celebrate their dance of mirth Mttlvt.so.Stmirttit:.s of'St'rnholk: Moile in Intrpr<'ting Mt'thologt' 7l Round the green tree.like tays upon I herth Those that are nearest linked in order bright Cheek afier cheek, like rosebuds in a wreath; And those more distant showing fi'om beneath The others' win-es their little eyes of light While see I Among tlie clouds .their eldest blother.
But just flown up, tells with a smile of bliss, This prank of Pluto to his charmed mother Who turns to greet the tidings with a kiss By using a method of reading similar to the myth reading done by Levi-strauss (in Culler, 1975:40) where he compares different myths, we could determine the underlying structure and hence the meaning.In the r.'ase of mythology in English poetry, we may see that it is easier to pro- t'ced rather than in Levi-Strauss' study since e there has been provided the c:ultural context which enables us to grasp the meaning which the poerns convey so that we can check our explanation of details by the reievance to tlre meanings.Just like in Levi-Strauss' study, we may apply the so-called " spiral movement" in which one rnyth is used to elucidate another .The l'inal result ought to be a coherent system in which each myth is studied rund understood in its relation with the others.To explain an item or inci- rlent in a particular myth, we must nct only consider its relation tc other cle ments in a poem, but also try to determine how it is related to elements rrppearing in similar contexts in other poems.Thus we could finally gather tlrat the myth of Proserphine in the three poems would be read as: Of Enna, where proserphine gathering flowers Herselt a lairer llower by gloomy Dis Was gather-ed, which cost Ceres all that pain To seek her through the world; nor that ,*".t g.ou"Of Daphne by Orontes, and the inspired Castallian spring, might with this paradise