The South Central Modern Language Association

Keats, Polysemy, and Romanticism

Author(s): Scott Simpkins
Source: South Central Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, Linguistics and Literature (Summer, 1990), pp.
15-30
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of The South Central Modern Language
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3189330 .
Accessed: 27/03/2013 12:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press and The South Central Modern Language Association are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to South Central Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Romanticism
Keats,Polysemy,
SCOTTSIMPKINS

ofNorthTexas
University
Thesummit
ofexcellence
seemstobe an assemblageofcontrary
qualthatno one partis foundto
ities,but mixed,in such proportions,
counteract
theother
SirJoshuaReynolds,
SevenDiscourses
(1778)
The sign came intoundeniableprominenceas both a thematicand methodological preoccupationforthe English Romanticsto the extentthatits
tracesappear throughouttheirworks in numerous--and not always obvious--manifestations.These writersdisplay an extensiveinvestmentin
attentiontothe semiotic
enterpriseswhichin itselfdrawsfurther
signifying
mechanismsfunctioningwithin any exchange of meaning. As Heinrich
Bosse suggests,"it was a new orientationin the theoryof signs which
provided the basis forRomanticliterarytheoryand practice."' Any work
designated as Romantic,whetherfromthe heart of the canon or on the
peripheryofthemargin,will illustratethat"the timeofthe sign"thatDean
and Juliet Flower MacCannell associate with contemporarycultural
thoughtfound its beginningsduring this period.2 Textualsupplements
(what Gerard Genette calls the "paratexte")such as prefaces,advertisements,introductions,and footnotes,for example, reveal themselvesas
devices used to buttressworks offeredby Scott,Byron,WilliamWordsworth,PercyShelley,and Coleridge as they carefullyguide the reader's
productionof the text.3Byronand Wordsworthfurthershape the interpretationsof theirtextsthroughinternaldecoding directionsas well, suggestingthattheyview language as eminentlyunreliable,and moreimportantly,disclosingtheirfearsthatreaderscannotbe trustedto elicita proper
readingwithouttheauthor'sintervention.And forBlake,a dense scaffoldthathis texts
ing ofreiterationinstillsa relativelyconsistentinterpretability
so long seemed to resist. Even sign functionsthemselvesbecome a recurrentthemeforthe Romanticsas theirtextsexplicitlyemphasizetheirown
textuality.All of these concernspoint to the greatimportanceaccorded to
withinthisperiod,highlighting
theintensefocuson signsthat
signification
continuesto grow in intensityalong withmodernity.The Romanticdesire
fora satisfyingformof signification
initiatestheappearanceofa long-term
based
not
on
an
unrealistic
desire
to controlthesign,but rather,on
project

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16

SouthCentral
Review

a precarious
faiththatsomehowthesigncanbe madetofunction
sufficiently.
The"other"sideofthisdesire,however,
is equallyprominent
duringthis
and
characteristic.
If
successful
period, equally
(defined,
signification
perofsatisfactory
canbe portrayed
haps,as thedecoder'sproduction
meaning)
as a gain,a correlation
ofsignifiers
withsignifieds
whichleavesthereader
thena complemental
condition(alwaysa concernfortheRomancontent,
ticsfromBlake'snotionof "contraries"
as a loss
on) could be identified
a
from
of
and
produced
confusing
misalignment signifiers signifieds.For
a
reader
a senseofinsufficiency
instance,
mighteasilyexperience
through
theproliferation
ofinformation
providedforan apparently
specificreadto deal within any
ing;thetext,in thissense,suppliestoo muchmaterial
to
construct
a
of
it.
This
the
is
attempt
reading
frequently caseinRomantic
workswhichencouragemultipleinterpretations
and denyauthoritative
indexesdesignedto reducedecodingpossibilities
or offerconflicting
inthisauthority.
dexeswhichsubvert
William
Paulsonobservesthata motivation forRomanticism
can be ascribedto "a protestagainstthe cultural
extensionof the Newtonianparadigmof calculable,predictabletrajectruein thecase of theRomantictextwhich
tories,"and thisis certainly
invitespluralityratherthanplacingitstrust(naively)in a determinate,
vehicle.4
monosemic
This is not to imply,of course,thatfromthe perspectiveof loss in
thetextresistsa formofcompletion
as a result:thetextofloss
Romanticism
can be completed(at least in a provisionalsense),forthe conspicuous
the
entityby no meanscircumvents
displayof its lack as a signifying
decoder'spractice.The readerunderthesecircumstances
merelyhas to
moreactivelythanusual in thetext'sproduction.The insufparticipate
displayinvitesthis
ficiency
engenderedthroughthetext'sself-conscious
of
a
monosemic
textostensibly
level
than
that
at a farhigher
production
for
As
the
designedforonlya singledecoding(a recipe, example). a result,
thesignification
losstogainthrough
processwhich
pluralworktransforms
tothework'smeaning.
thereader'scontribution
createsthisgainthrough
of the
textresiststheconfiguration
irreducible
theseemingly
Moreover,
textpresupposes
(allowingthatsucha text
productwhichthemonosemous
could,in fact,exist),therebyengagingthe decoderin a procedurethat
otherwisewould be the sole provinceof the encoder. The textof loss
semiosis:it invitesthereader,through
essentially
paradesitsmultivalent
tocreatea gainfroma textwhichappearstoresist
an assumedinadequacy,
such a possibility.Whilethereseemsto be an inexhaustible
plethoraof
in a workofthisnature(thus,thetextneverspecifically
"says"
signifiers
what it means), this same condition engenders an interventionby the
reader-as-decoderwho constructsa temporarilyfinal reading. The appearance of thisconceptamong theRomanticsis historicallysignificantas
well regardingchangingnotionsofacceptabletextualconventions."Rather than being definedby its seriousness,its contents,the prestigeof its

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Scott
Simpkins

17

or by anything
otherthanitself,"
Paulsonnotes,"literature
practitioners,
could
be specified
the
of
henceforth
by
[following example Romanticism]
its
itsrelation
toitsownprocessofproduction,
linktocreation
by privileged
itself"(118).Andifthisproduction
initially
yieldsan unsatisfying
reading,
as RolandBarthesdescribes
or"friction"
a resistance
the
it,thereader(from
Romanticperiodonward)simplyhas to adjustto thisdevelopment
and
to producea pleasurableoutcomenonetheless:
to "savorthissort
attempt
offriction."5
Eco's discussionsofthe"openwork"and Barthes'sdifferentiaUmberto
tionbetween"Work"and "Text"providehelpfulconceptualizations
ofthe
textual
characteristic
ofthisfacetofRomanticism.
economies
Openness,for
means
no
authorizes
a
hermeneutic
chaos
enacted
Eco,by
by thereader
in
Eco's
own
reveals
investment
in
the
notion
of
(which, fact,
"gain").He
instead
a
mutual
of
the
bounded
obvious
textual
context,
posits
play
by
straints
initiated
the
in
the
free
sense
that
readers
their
by author,
yet
bring
tothetext'sconstruction.
owncontributions
AlthoughEco acknowledges
a formof "semiotic'guerillawarfare'"in whichthereaderpurposefully
codesarrangedand employedbytheauthor,
he nonetheless
transgresses
a
certain
for
the
author's
work
while
prominence
grants
simultaneously
ofthereader:"In oppositionto a strategy
ofcoding,
elevatingtheactivity
whichstrivesto rendermessagesredundant
in orderto secureinterpretatopre-established
thiswarfare]
tionaccording
plans,onecantrace[through
a tactic
ofdecodingwherethemessageas expression
formdoesnotchange
buttheaddresseerediscovers
hisfreedom
Theopenwork,then,
ofdecoding."6
invitesthe reader'sparticipation
in its creationwhile at the same time
positingat least a limitedsense of priorexistence:"[I]t installsa new
Eco asserts,
"betweenthecontemplation
and theutilization
of
relationship,"
a workofart."7Similarly,
Barthesidentifies
thecommodification
ofartas a
of the
"Work,"whereasthe "Text""practicesthe infinitepostponement
"itsfieldis thatofthesignifier."
Becauseit is "structured
but
signified":
withoutclosure,"theText"fulfills
theveryplurality
ofmeandecentered,
ing."8 The Work,on the otherhand,encouragesa static,attainableuse
whose potentialis alreadyexhaustedupon the constricted
decodingit
Theconnection
betweenRomanticism
(or,actually,
presupposes
demands).
and thesetextualtheorieslies in theparallelsregarding
theyearningfor
communicational
on a grandscalesimilar
toMariaCorti'sconcept
plurality
of "macropolysemy"
in whicha workas a whole remainsinexhaustibly
multivalent9In fact,as Paulsonremarks,
the"formal
senseofa totality
isperhapswhat
incapableofbeingseizedbyanysinglecognitive
procedure
stillbindsus tothatgrandioseprojectforliterature
knownas romanticism"

(115).

David Simpson's Ironyand Authority

in RomanticPoetry,a large-scale
tracesnumerousmaniinvestigationofthiselementin Romanticliterature,
festationsofthedriveformultiplicity
amongthesewriters.FortheRomantics,he observes,"Artcan aspire towardsan open systemby includingas

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18

South CentralReview

manyoptionsas possible,relyingupon the readerto providehis own

coherence
betweenthem."10
Thispositionhighlights
thecritical
stancethe
Romanticsassumetowardadherenceto any givenideologicalposition,
even ifthesucha stanceitselfalso qualifiesas ideology."TheRomantic
isa statecharacterized
heartland
nearthemiddle,"
L. J.Swingle
byhovering
asserts,"a conditionin whichthemindis consciousofbeingsurrounded
each
bythepotentclaimsofmanycandidatesforideologicalcommitment,
in
its
own
one
to
hold
its
'truths'
valid
seemingly
terms--were willing
thanthoseofitscompetitors
Thesenotionsofpotenrather
self-evident."1
tial alternativesfrequentlymanifestthemselvesin Romanticworks
as their"cyclicform"[180])and while
(throughwhatSimpsonidentifies
a
numerousexamplescouldbe drawnupontoillustrate
sucha contention,
venture
will
familiar
which
seem
unconnected
with
this
poem
mayinitially
be examinedtodemonstrate
thepresenceofthetextuallackevenina work
thatappearson thesurface
tofacilitate
readercomprehension:
JohnKeats's
"Ode to a Nightingale."Keats'snotionof"NegativeCapability"
in which
without
is
of
in
"man capable being uncertainties,
doubts,
any
Mysteries,
irritable
reachingafterfact& reason"servesas a usefulparadigmforthe
readers
thatmanifests
itselfin hiswell-known
ode as itprompts
polysemy
own
initial
more
their
to workwiththetext'spluralities
or,
importantly,
a
of
in
what
Gradman
argues
difficultycreating satisfactory
reading
Barry
is themost"rhetorically
indeterminate"
ofKeats's1819odes.12Becauseit
a driveforpolyvalence,
articulates
the principleof NegativeCapability
for
reveals
the
Romantics'
of potentialstrategies
awareness
graphically
morethe
text.
Keats's
from
ode,
yieldinggreater
enjoyment
Nightingale
as he employsmobilesigns
over,servesas a testcaseforthisundertaking
whatBarthescharacto encouragefree,meaningless
(through
production
ofthetext)as themostlikelyway to
terizesas the"organizedpluralities"
for the reader's
elicit incalculable associations and interpretations
pleasure.13
Of course,readersaredirectedtowardthistextualplaythroughKeats's
thatwould
ownguidanceprovidedbya textladenwithbreaksandruptures
has
no other
the
reader
these
to
lead
Given
conditions,
logically
aporia.
evenifthis
choicethantocreatea readingwhichbridgestheincoherencies,
as theode's ethos.Thereader
is achievedbyaccepting
uncertainty
practice
thatnotonlyis assembly
is toldessentially
requiredhere,butthattoomany
to
mustbe undertaken
activities
are
included:
individual
decoding
pieces
the
result
is
form.
This
its
inadequate
by
prompted
produce completed
whichprevents
thereaderfrom
a typeofdiscontinuity
ofthetext,
mediation
a completeplanforitsdecodingprocedure.My discussions
determining
readers
of thispoemwithseveralhundredgraduateand undergraduate
anambiguousand
thatitusuallyelicitsa certain
reaction,
confirm
troubling
indeterminateresponse thatoftenexistsbeyond articulation-an aphasia
that reflectsthe text'sown mute discourse which can be viewed paradoxicallyas a "surplus of expression,"as Eco suggests (A Theory270). "In

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ScottSimpkins

19

ofthe'Ode toa Nightingale'

theturmoil
willnotdown,"Earl
anyreading
"Forces
contend
Wasserman
within
thepoem,notonly
argues.
wildly
but
without
without
of
Asa result
of
resolution,
possibilityresolution."14
thisdynamic,
thereaderis freedfrom
discursive
and
decoding
practices
toproceed
without
andcertainly
without
itinerary
apparent
encouraged
goal.
apparent
In a famous
his"Defence
ofPoetry,"
passagefrom
Shelleydepictsthis
in
a
'A
Poet
is
a
whositsin
activity decidedly
positive
nightingale,
manner.
andsingstocheer
itsownsolitude
darkness
withsweetsounds;hisauditors
areas menentranced
ofanunseenmusician,
whofeelthat
bythemelody
are
moved
and
know
not
whence
or
Keats
softened,
they
yet
why."15
concurs
with
this
to
when
he
identifies
in
one
apparently
approach poetics
ofhisletters
thedisgust
readers
whenfacedwithpoetry
"that
experience
hasa palpabledesignon us." Suchpoetry
a one-dimensional,
promotes
semiotic
that
remains
closed
to
reader
tyrannical
resolutely
participation:
headds,it"seems
toput
"andifwedo notagree"withthistypeofpoetry,
itshandinitsbreeches
and
refuses
further
interaction
under
pocket"
except
itsownterms
triadic
Ferdinand
from
de
(2.224).A convenient
relationship
Saussure
to
illuminate
Keats's
remark
it
as
to
mayhelp
pertains
specifically
theNightingale
ode:thesignifier
isgivenfreereinintheodeasitssignified
a secondary
assumes
thesign,as a result,
becomes
individual
and
position;
rather
than
the
calculated
of
the
encoder.
This
unfettered,
product
given
release
a message
devoidofimport;
interpretative
bynomeans
presupposes
as CandaceLangobserves,
an "allsignifier"
discourse
wouldbe "farfrom
sincethedecoder
a signified
whenpresented
meaningless"
alwaysimposes
witha signifier
andthereby
creates
Keatsoffers
this
inevitably
meaning.16
flexible
construct
as a meansto promote
as a receptive
designlessness
encoder
theconventional
writer-reader
hierstrategy,
effectively
reversing
intheprocess
thereader
as writer.
archy
byestablishing
Butclearly
thisfunctions
asa "design"
inthestructure
ofthepoemdespite
Keats'scontention;
itis a design,
thatis activated
however,
onlythrough
thereader's
ownengagement
withthepoem'sstructuration.7
Keatshints
at thisthrough
thenotionof"agreement"
inhisassertion,
a constraining
directive
whichimplies
a naivecorrelation,
a sortofhermeneutic
contract,
between
theencoder
andthedecoderenacted
intervention.
bythetext's
His response
to thisobservation
havebeenthat,on thecontrary,
might
workssuchas theNightingale
odearenot,infact,
grounded
bythenotion
ofa unitary
instead
ofresisting
thereader's
presupposition:
unique(and
histextwelcomes
mediation
whichexconstantly
mutable)
production,
ofitssignifieds.
Thetext,
inthissense,growswith
pandstheperimeters
eachreading:
thegainsitencourages
areironically
fueledbyitsmanifest

losses. As thisode demonstrates,

theconceptof"lessis more"is possibly
neverbetterillustrated
thanthrough
thetextofloss.
Thislossis initially
and generic
camouflaged
bytheode's typographical
however.Mostreadersundoubtedly
viewthecarefully
regularity,
crafted

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

SouthCentral
Review

themeter,
andso on as indications
ofthepoet's
stanzas,
schemes,
rhyme
with
control
and
coherence.
If
the
reader
browses
the
compliance
through
to
to
its
the
ode
in
poemprior attending content,
appears
neatly
organized
a manner
thatbeliesitsdisruptive
content.
In thismanner,
itdeceives
the
intobelieving
reader
thatthepoemwillpresent
aninnocuous,
commodified
ode offers
itselfas a
readingexperience.Upon first
sight,theNightingale
textofalmostpuregainand invitesthereadertojudgeitbyits"cover."
Thisappearanceis immediately
reinforced
as thespeakercomplieswith
theconventions
ofexposition
an
byproviding initialreference
pointatthe
of
the
a
"frame"
in
the
sensethat
beginning
poem,essentially
constructing
in
Frame
Goffman
discusses
Robert
and
Gunther
Erving
Analysis.
Hodge
Kressarguethatthisgesture
an
implies ideologically
significant
compliance
withthe genericdictumof a propernarrative
structure
(i.e.,beginning,
takesflux,incessant
insolubleprobmiddle,and end). "Narrative
activity,
turns
into
and
them
lems,
coherence,
solution,"
stability,
theyobserve."It
boundaries
around
and
puts
disruptive
processes events,and oftenbreaks
themup further
intodiscrete
or
theirdisruptive
steps stages,againlimiting
To extendthisfurther,
suchadherencesuggeststhatthespeaker
force."18
willatleasttosomeextent
followconventionalized
rulesapplying
totextual
and
And
theinitiation
ofKeats'sframein theopening
unity
coherency.
lines--"Myheartaches,anda drowsynumbness
pains/Mysense"-seems
to confirm
thisassumption.19
The inclusionofthesedetailsmarkstheir
apparentroleas boundariedindexesofthespeaker'sframeofmindwhen
thathe feels"as thoughofhemlockI had drunk,
he remarks
/Or emptied
somedull opiateto thedrains/ One minutepast,and Lethe-wards
had
sunk:"(2-4). Considering
the importance
of the senderin any semiotic
will be, of course,usefulto somedegreefor
exchange,thisinformation
decodingthe ode. For example,the selectionof similescan be read in
relation
tothespeaker'sennui.Thisobservation
stands,accordingspecific
unitof information
whichachievesadditionalpromly,as a significant
inencethrough
itspositionas openingcue. Theselinesalsoprovidea sense
ofphaticreaderawareness,suggesting
perhapsthatthedecoder'sroleis
and possiblyevenaccommodated
bythesenderwithout
beingconsidered
the
thisopeningalsoimplicates
ulterior
motive.Yet,as a rhetorical
strategy,
and throughthisimplication,
the reader's
readerintothemessageitself,
thatKeatsis beginningto
is drawnawayfromthemultivalence
attention
construct.

togenrespecifications
the
further
adheres
Thespeaker
byestablishing
asa residue
(thou).Thismayexist
merely
(I) anditsobject
subject
speaking
butas anintroductory
as thereader
ofsuchadherence,
later,
maysuspect
forthereader'sinterpretation
a siteof traction
it establishes
gesture,
throughexpositionand genericconvention. Barthesidentifiessuch conventionalopeningsas one of several"signs ofnarration"which as a whole
deficiency"-afterall,thenarratoralreadyknows this
displaya "signifying
informationabout his condition: evidently,he provides it as a way to

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Scott
Simpkins

21

thepresence
ofthereader,
toindicate
thatthereader's
active
acknowledge
the
in
text's
construction
is
initiated.
This
being
"signofthe
participation
reader"
heralds
the
later
that
Keats
will
solicit
asthe
cooperation
essentially
of
levels
the
text
to
vacillate
and
demand
an
begin
integrative
signifying
refers
tosuchdevices
asindications
Corti
response,
finally,
bythereader.20
ofa text's
whichdrawattention
toitsstatus
as a communica"signedness"
tiveventure
betweensenderand receiver
Instead
of a merean(37).
nouncement
ofa presumed
correlation
between
author
andsender(as is
often
ofa speaker's
case),thisattribution
arguedinWordsworth's
identity
establishes
thereader's
with
the
normative
ofdecodengagement
practice
asRoman
stresses
inhisschema
ofthecommunication
Jakobson
ingwhich,
considers
the
influence
of
the
source
aswellasthemessage
model,
potential

FromGoffman's
thisutterance
servesas an "anchoring
perspective,
itself21
of theframe,"
thusidentifying
thespeakingsubjectwho establishesthe
encodingprocedureofthistextorservesas a fictitious
agentoftheactual
encoder(Keats).22
This techniqueis commonin Romanticliterature,
oftenservingas a
in which,forinstance,the first-person
definingcharacteristic
pronoun
announcesthe writer'selevationof an individualselfto an acceptable
poeticsubject.As such,thisdeviceis a significant
exampleofa decoder
to deal moresuccessfully
witha message;to signal,in other
attempting
ofthespeakeronthespeech.A famousexampleofthis
words,theinfluence
in
Allan
Poe's "ThePurloinedLetter"in whichDupin exappears Edgar
a
method
for
likeanotherindividualwhichinvolvesmimplains
thinking
ickingthephysicalattributes
(makingthe"face"ofanother,
etc.)as wellas
theframe
ofmindofthatindividual.In orderforthereadertodo thiswith
theNightingale
sketch-however
ode,Keatsprovidesa character
brief--of
thenarrator
as an indexforthisprocedure.
Theclosinglinesofthisstanzaadditionally
reinforce
thespeaker'salignmentwithgenericconstraints
thesubjectofhismetaphoribyintroducing
cal alliance-thenightingale
perched"In somemelodiousplot"(8) who
in full-throated
ease" (10). Keatsestablishes
a decep"Singestofsummer
at thisjuncturethroughtheuse of
tivelycohesivetriangular
relationship
the speakerand the nightingale
presentedas vehiclesforthe reader's
a
apprehension.Still,theslippery
syntaxengagedin thispassageprompts
dislocationoflogicwhichinevitably
createsconfusion.The preparatory
colonattheendoflinefourimpliesa correlation
(oratleastan approximate
and histhoughts
on thenightinlinkage)betweenthespeaker'scondition
is radically
undonethrough
thedisjunctive
assergale,yetthisconnection
tionwhichaccentuates
itspolysemousness
through
ambiguousstatement.

The speaker apparentlyinterpretsthe source of his languid mood as inspired"not throughenvy of thyhappy lot,/But being too happy in thine
happiness,-" (5-6). Througha paradoxicalassertionregardingemotions
which cloythroughexcessthatis markedlyreminiscent
(in severalrespects)
of the conclusionto Coleridge's Christabel,
Keats createsa gap in rationale

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22

SouthCentral
Review

thatthrusts
thereaderintoan unstablehermeneutic
position.
Anotherdecodingpossibility
existshere,however,
one thatmayinitially
the
itself
reader
and
fail
to
recede
even
afteran acceptable
impose
upon
the
been
if
in
lines
has
these
is identified
notas
produced,
subject
reading
the speaker,but the nightingale.In thissense,the birdwould be the
individualwhosesongderivesnotthrough"envyof[its]happylot,"but
atthe
becauseitis "toohappyin [its]happiness."Thestackedpunctuation
endofline6 (,-) potentially
this
confusion
a
engenders
byimplyinglogical
in theprecedingfourlines. And the
extensionofthesubjectintroduced
inthesepivotal
(exceptthrough
implication)
speaker'slackofself-reference
lines further
invitesthesemultivalent
possibilities.Accordingly,
signs
hereand initiatethevacillationofunstablemessagesas Keats
transform
makesa prominent
fostersa highlymutabletextuality.Indeterminacy
in degree
even
it
fluctuates
withthisdevelopment
entrance
and,
though
to the
maintains
an
influence
of
the
its
most
poem, presence
throughout
end.
This sign alterationcontinuesin the nexttwo stanzasas the speaker
hisdesire
searchesfora meansto secureadequatepleasureand articulates
locus
ofthis
The
diffuse
intoxication.
forunembodiedtransport
through
with
desired
the
reveals
alignment NegativeCapability
speaker's
pleasure
thesuppositionofa conditionbeyondmutain thesestanzas,reiterating
of such a
bility,or at leasta stateof mindthatservesas a simulacrum
the
result
Keats
ofthismindset
condition.(Theinducement
is,presumably,
of
the
the
the
as
well
elicit
reader
to
from
ode.)
through experience
hopes
thespeakerseeksto transvalue
throughexternal
experience
Significantly,
itsnaivealliancewiththe
whichbetrays
a metonymical
stimuli,
alignment
notionofa presumedstatebeyondtheself.The speakerassertsthatthe
wouldallowhimto"leavetheworldunseen"and
utilization
ofintoxicants
dim"withthenightingale
"fadeawayintotheforest
(19-20).Stanzathree
hisdesire
as thespeakerproclaims
theyearning
forthistransport
rehearses
the
thou
What
to"Fadefaraway,dissolve,and quiteforget
/
among leaves
of
involvestheimplication
hastneverknown"(21-22).Keats'smetonymy
a
herebased upon a loose formof ratiocination,
a proposedenactment
The
as
describes
Keats
2.185).
"consequitivereasoning"(Letters
practice
inthese
natureofthislogicisitsmostdesirabletraitas suggested
unfettered
methodola
discursive
with
minimal
for
its
stanzas,
correspondence
only
abundantreserve.Eventhoughthe
ogyis thesourceoftheimagination's
be
economicvalue of thisactivity
throughits originin
may diminished
the
allow
nonetheless
it
could
artifice
speakerto engage
(theintoxicant),
thatoverwhelms
the
lassitude
and
transcend
weighty
NegativeCapability
Thesensationofescape,eveninitsnegativeconnotahimatthebeginning.
tion,stillcreatesits effectregardlessof its actual origin.
Somewhatsurprisingly,
however,thiseffectis spurnedby the speakerin
the fourthstanza: he insiststhatanothersubstitution("theviewless wings
of Poesy" [33] for"Bacchus and his pards" [32]) will allow himto createthe

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ScottSimpkins

23

outcome
without
desired
thelossattending
theemployment
ofanexternal
medium.
Sincepoetry
seemsderived
from
aninternal
thepleasure
source,
its
itproduces,
reminiscent
of
wine's
influence,
despite externality
appears
connected
withitsderivation
tobe moreemphatically
from
theself.23
But
the
of
this
alternative
in
Romantic
literaconsidering prominence
English
forinstance),
itsappearance
should
ture(Wordsworth's
utterance,"
"timely
after
notbethatsurprising
all.
YetKeatsapparently
thisresponse
andattempts
tosubvert
its
anticipates
of
monosemic
his
into
surety,
againplacing signsuperstructure
implication
motion.Immediately
afterthespeaker'sconfident
assertion
regarding
its
and
his
as"thedull
linguistic
certainty,contrary
appears jettisons project
brainperplexes
andretards:"
itscomplemental
(34).Lossassumes
position
this
its
the
through response,
dramatizing frustrating
presence
through
of
the
the
desire
for
stagnation
speaker'simaginative
ability.Perhaps
is
at
the
root
of
this
for
Keats
correlates
dilemma,
textualizing
imagination
thisdevelopment
withthedrivetoproduce
Iftheimagination
is
poetry.
notstructured
likea language
butinstead
is pre-linguistic
nature
and
by
thenindeedtheutilization
oflanguage
linguistic
onlybycomprehension,
wouldbeanactivity
to
Keats's
of
opposed Negative
Capability.
inscription
fluid
demonstrates
this
as
the
with
eminently signsclearly
speaker
grapples
themediation
ofa highly
resistant
discourse.
Butthespeaker's
isnotoveratthispoint,
asthecolonattheend
struggle
ofline34suggests.Keatspresents
a correspondent
gainwhichseemsto
overtherecalcitrant
as thespeaker
to
triumph
organofthought
proclaims
thenightingale
thatheis 'Already
withthee! ;5). Still,thisaccomplish-

mentis quicklyundermined-undermines
infact-through
therheitself,
toricalassumptionof supportthroughassertion.By implying
thatthis
desirehas beenachievedthrough
itsownsupposition,
thespeakercreates
a
charade
for
himself
whileadditionally
only pitiful
plungingthereader

from
toconfusion
inthedecoding
Thespeaker
immeclarity
procedure.24

thisdelusionand confesses:
diatelyrecognizes

Butherethereis no light,
Savewhatfrom
heaveniswiththebreezesblown

verdurous
andwinding
Through
glooms
mossy
ways.

I cannotsee what flowersare at my feet,

Nor what softincensehangs upon theboughs,
But,in embalmeddarkness,guess each sweet
Wherewiththe seasonable monthendows
The grass,the thicket,and the fruit-tree
wild; (38-45)

As soon as he returnsto analyticalactivity,

thespeakerregainsthenagging
sense of loss thatnot only initiatesthe poem but grounds it throughout.
His renewed despondency returnsonly afterhe applies reason to his

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

South CentralReview

andvoluntarily
limitshissensoryexperiences
tothepathetisurroundings
finite
field
that
both
Blake
and
Wordsworth
abhor.The
cally
perceptional
"But"in line38,whenviewedas a negativeshiftfroma previousassertion,
toachievehisgoal mentioned
in the
clearlysignalsthespeaker'sinability
the
lines:
his
has
for
worse
as the
immediately
preceding
position changed
lackoflightimpedeshisabilitytofeelthedelighthe desires.
itselfhere,however,
Analternative
decodingpresents
thereby
providing
a distinctcontrastto a despondentreadingof thisdevelopment.2The
therelativelackoflightas support
speakercouldarguablybe employing
forhisabilitytoperceivethingsaroundhimevenwithoutit,so thatinthis
receivedfrom
sensethe"But"inline38enhancesthesatisfaction
hisability
of
is
thus
emblematic
a
toriseabovelimitation.
element
Light
supplemental
thatonlydistances
thespeakerfrom
a high
likepoetryandwine,something
with
the
around
him.
In
of
involvement
this
potentialexperience
degree
is
he
transmits
himself
his
sense, accomplishmentgenuine: successfully
createdby
Thelackoftangiblepointsofreference
beyondbodilyrestraint.
stimuli
as
his
theinsufficient
suggestedby
lightactuallyheightens sensory
eventhoughhe is unableto
his abilityto findpleasurein thefragrances
theirsource.He is,in thisregard,sufand thereby
comprehend
identify
and loss--andenjoyingit.
fusedwithindirection
on thepleasurable
Thespeaker'scommentary
aspectsofdeath,reiterated
"Ode on a GrecianUrn,"and "Ode on Melanelsewherein "ToAutumn,"
in his
thistransformation
reinforces
choly"amongotherpoems,further
the
he
"Death"
with
He
"ecstasy" experiences
decodingtechnique. equates
whilehearingthenightingale's
song,fusingthetwointoa heterogeneous
A
a largersphereofdirectionless
ofelements
activity.
comprising
spectrum
out ofthebird's
is constructed
textualparadigmforthisaccomplishment
and keysmimicthecreationof gain froman
song:itsluxurioustextures
loss.
Thebird'ssongis obviouslymutable,but
economybeleagueredby
itstimelessness
contention
thespeaker's
regarding
appearstodisabletemporaladvancement.26
that"Thouwastnot
whenhe proclaims
Thespeakeris therefore
justified
treadtheedown"
No
Bird!
immortal
bornfordeath,
/ hungrygenerations
of
assertion
enactsa related
literal
The
displacement
(61-62).
metaphorical
the
remarks
as
of
uponan otherwise
speaker
displacement readingprotocol
ofgothicconventhe
realm
outside
least
(at
development
incomprehensible
In
ancientdaysby
heard
was
this
I
hear
voice
/
"The
passingnight
tions):
to engage
the
reader
shift
This
encourages
emperorand clown"(63-64).
buton
the
literal
real
and
not
on
the
are
based
that
decodingprocedures
is
A
form
of
ideal
and thefigurative.
theimpossible
interpretationestabas the speakerintroducesa meansfor
lishedthroughthissubstitution
elicitingpleasure froma conceptionthatresistslogic.
IfKeatshad ended theode in thisfashion,thepositiveside ofsignification
would be presentedas a naive,totalizinggain bereftof a desirablecountersubvertssuch a
part of difference.However, the finalstanza effectively

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ScottSimpkins

25

staticimbalance:
theverywordislikea bell
Forlorn!
Totollmebackfrom
theetomysoleself!
cannot
cheatsowell
Adieu!thefancy
Assheisfam'd
todo,deceiving
elf.
Adieu!adieu!thyplaintive
anthem
fades
overthestillstream,
Pastthenearmeadows,
andnow'tisburied
deep
Upthehill-side;
Inthenextvalley-glades:
(71-78)
a restorative
in theselines,instigating
Loss returns
gesturethatrecallsthe
of
and
the
desire
fora formofclosure
insufficiencieslanguage
motivating
could
be
called
Positive
thesoul from
that
Capability."In thusdelivering
thatis emthenightingale,"
Swingleobserves,"Keatsexecutesa strategy
of
Romantic
ambition:
to
blematic thecharacteristic
exploreyetalso torise
thatimprison"
above enticingconvictions
(60). Recognizingthathe has
thespeakerenactsa
intoa falsesenseofsecurereduction,
lulledhimself
from
withdrawal
the
restrictive
he
necessary
ideology has embraced.But
withan inherent
hisre-engagement
lackthatresolveshispresentdilemma
wouldonlyinitiate
theoveralldilemma
a spiraling
again,forming
dynamic
withno ultimatesynthesis
no
thus
transcendental
(and
signified).Keats
has alreadycreatedsufficient
cause to warrantthisconclusion,yethe is
about to providea finalemphaticreversalwhichviolentlyupsetsthe
ofsigns. His strategy
structure
involvesemploying
the
alreadytottering
twoclosinglinesoftheode toessentially
re-codeallofthepreceding
codes,
of comfortable,
lineardevelopment
that
therebydenyingtheimposition
readersmayhavecreatedup tothatpoint.
Barthesnotesthatwritersof detectivestoriesfrequently
employ"bafconfusion
forthereader,
and
fling"signstoproducea stateofsignificatory
Keatsanticipates
thisdevelopment
hissubversive
use of
evidently
through
thevision/dream
convention
("Introduction"
109). Unlike"TheDreamof
theRood"orPiersPlouwman
inwhichthereaderis presented
withan easily
discernibleconditionto decode (thisstoryis leadingup to a moral,for
theendingoftheNightingale
ode resiststhis"easy"commodiinstance),
fication(an alignment
withtheexpectations
of consumption)
througha
of its logic: insteadof explainingthe significance
of the
displacement
Gofflines,theconclusioneffectively
preceding
disruptsthissignificance.
illuminates
Keats'suse of this
man's extensivediscussionof "framing"
thepotentialforframealteration.As Gofdevice,especiallyconcerning
fmancontends,
"theframe
canbe reversed,"
and thisis exactly
whatKeats

is doing in his closing lines (177). Moreover,by employingthe musical

parallelofthe"key,"Goffmanpresentsa termwhicharticulatesthesemiotic
shiftthat Keats signals. "A keying,"Goffmanargues, "performsa crucial

roleindetermining
whatitiswe thinkis reallygoingon"ina situation
(45),

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26

SouthCentral
Review

and in theinstanceoftheNightingale
in
ode,Keatschangeskeyradically
thismanner:no longeris thereaderable to makesense,to legitimizea
of a new
decodingof the poem's operation,because the introduction
unsettles
the
[369])
significatory
ground(through
"keyshifting"
previously
established
decodingprocedurethereaderemployed.All oftheparadigmaticand syntagmatic
relationsarepotentially
revaluedin thesameway
thatusingan "option"or"control"
on
a
key
microcomputer
keyboardcan
for
different
functions
a
In
the
engage
singlekey. short, closinglines
whatGoffman
break"(369)throughan alteration
enforce
callsa "frame
in
its"governance"
associates
this
in
Ro(347). Simpson
activity
specifically
withthe"abolitionofthe'metacomment',
thelanguageoutside
manticism
thereadera stableperspective
fromwhichto
languagewhichmightoffer
delook down upon thelandscapeofthepoem"(179). Keatsessentially
maintenance
of
links
with
static
comfortable
perspective
through
any
stroys
such a gestureas he unhingesan apparently
impendingclosureoften
withthesignoftheconclusion.Withthevisibleend ofthetext
identified
conventions
whichfurther
in sight,as well as attending
linguistic
signal
thisstoppage,thereadermayreasonablyexpecttheauthorto providea
textualcul-de-sacratherthanan intersection
openingontonumerousunthis
is
what
Keatswantsthe readerto
avenues.
Yet
exactly
anticipated
which
is
dashedjustwhen
a
conventional
anticipation
emphatically
expect:
of
thetextualplayseemsalmostover-a surprise
kind,
ending a different
in effect.
alternative
WhileKeatsdesignsthepoemtoencourage
readingsforgiven
lines
serve
as
the
final
and
mostpowerful
the
as
it
sites
progresses, closing
when
the
wonders:
"Was
it a vision,
to
device promotepolysemy
speaker
I
wake
or
is
that
music:
Do
Fled
dream?
ora waking
/
sleep?"(79-80).Keats's
of
consciousness
further
state
of
an
use
(thevision/dream)
extraordinary
an
in
this
manner
arena
charactextual
byemploying
openness
encourages
terizedbya lackofdiscursive
instead,theassociative
logic(whichproduces,
of
in
Wake).7And, course,theentirerangeof
logicJoycereveals Finnegans
to as "concentric
framesofpercepmessages(whatCharlesRzepkarefers
of
the
text
becomes
unsettled
tion")withinthelargermessagepossibilities
itself
is addiwhich
a
of
economy,
throughtheconsideration vision/dream
at
the
end to
own
the
inability
through speaker's
tionallyproblematized
that
he is
he
mentions
After
whathas happened.28
all,
only
exactly
specify
to
and
fails
abouttheeventsthathave takenplace
uncertain
providethe
a
for
to
as
serve
readerwitha concrete
ground interpretation.
explanation
Since the closinglines of a poem are usuallythe site of conclusionin
ofclosurein this
thesubversion
Keatsironically
emphasizes
signification,
to readjust
to
return
reader's
the
which
previoussegments
prompts
poem
the initial reading. As a textualcomponentwith perhaps even greater
theconclusionfunctionsin thiscase to reopen
statusthantheintroduction,
theprocessionofmessagesand consumesthereader'sperceptionsofeveryis
thingpriortoitlikea textualblackhole. Swinglenotesthatthisstrategy

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Scott
Simpkins

27

common
so as toholdtheir
amongRomantic
poemsthatare"structured
back
until
the
it
burst
the
reader's
mindinthe
end,
question
letting
upon
finallineswiththeeffect
ofrendering
whathascomebefore
hypothetical,
oruncertain"
ofthisdevelopment,
thereaderis
(62). As a result
fragile,
forced
toengagein an activity
MichaelRiffaterre
refers
toas "retroactive

the"secondinterpretation"
ofthetextthathe arguesis "thetruly
reading,"
hermeneutic
reading."3
Riffaterre's
(whathe
emphasisuponthereader'scyclicalinterpretations
calls"semioticcircularity"
constant
the
of exrepetition
[166])highlights
which
characterizes
act
of
cues
of
a
text.31
changes
any
decodinggiven
Keatsis,in effect,
thereaderto abandonconventional
notions
prompting
ofreduction
in readingand replacethemwitha decoder-oriented
formof
The
text
anew
at
this
with
an
NegativeCapability.
begins
point
unexpected
reserveofsignifiers
thatnowis tobe recontextualized
additional
through
and activereadingpractices.As theruptureinstigated
the
conclusion
by
of the Nightingaleode reveals,Riffaterre
has accurately
describedthe
rather
than
linear
nature
of
While
lossand gain
decidedlyspatial
reading.
flexbackand forth
inthepoem,thereaderhasno otheralternative
thanto
the
as
it
is
In this
question interpretative
process
constantly
reconfigured.
Chase
to
be
the
respect,Cynthia
appears
accurately
assessing importance
ofthisphenomenon
in Keats'spoetrywhenshecontendsthatit"questions
thestatusofperception"
and therefore
"makesthenatureofsensoryevidence a difficulty."32
This problematic
endeavorreappearsthroughout
Romantic
literature
as
well
thecharacteristic
of
English
through
portrayal
individualsattempting
to expressthemselves
and theirthoughts,
onlyto
findlimitedsuccessin theprocess.Signification
is thusportrayed
as an
seriesofexchanges:
theoccasionalsuccessesthatoccurinunpredictable
fuela stronger
desiretorepeattheprocedure
overandover,which
evitably
further
withloss. TheRomantics
correspondingly
engenders
engagements
devise strategies
forincreasingthe likelihoodof theseacpersistently
instead
of
to thissemioticcrisis,
complishments
fatalistically
succumbing
and textssuch as the Nightingaleode serveas distinctillustrations
of
in thisregard.The disruption
ofcoherent
reader
potentialmultivalency
is clearlyalignedwiththeentanglement
facedbythedecomprehension
coderofKeats'spoemwho has to somehowaccommodate
thesubversive
cue instigated
by thefinallinesin orderto producea pleasurablereading
theretroactive
Moreover,
thesites
experience.
decodingprocesshighlights
ofindeterminacy
oncethereaderhasproceededthrough
theentirepoem,
further
thisundeniably
seductiveendeavor.
thereby
complicating
Keatsuses polyvalent
theode to provokethis
components
throughout
confusion
and encourageactiveparticipation
bythereaderthatessentially
entailstheactofre-writing
thepoemforeachindividualresponse(evenby

the same reader over a seriesof readings)to draw attentionultimatelyto

the potentialpolysemyof all texts. As Gary Handwerk observes,"Diver-

bornofitsreferential
gencesofmeaningwithina singletext,
disjunction,

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

28

SouthCentralReview

serveto enlighten
theattentive
readerabouttheprimacy
offiguralstructuresand theirduplicity."33
Thissemiotic
is
strategy frequently
employed
in Romantic
literature
to disruptthereader'scomfortable
adherenceto a
as Swingleargues,by
givenideologywhichis undermined,
a dynamicprocessthatinvolvesattraction
and withdrawal,movement
in some given directionbalanced by movementor at least feintsin
alternativeor even directlycontradictory
directions,questions thatdo
not quite resolvethemselvesintosufficient
answers,apparentanswers
thatserve merelyto raisemorebasic questions.(59)

ofthisRomantic
Theonlylimitation
liesin the
approachtoreader-writing
reader'sabilitytoaccepta decodingpractice
basedupona NegativeCapabetweenindeterbilitywhichholdsthepromiseof a viable"alternative
that
Handwerk
calls
and
"ethical
minacy authority"
irony"(16).3
a kind
Barthesdescribesthisopennessas a formof"structural
'limping,'
'falls'givethenarrative
ofincessantplayofpotentials,
whosedifferent
its
It
authorizes
the
as
or
its
reader
a
("Introduction"
133).
dynamic
energy"
of
the
one
its
authors:
Keats
reverses
resultto actively
text,
becoming
play
theconvention
oftextualconsumption
the
throughthisgesture,
creating
roleofthe"addresseeas producer"(Corti44). Ratherthandiffusing
the
of
readers
the
work
are
to
(what
referring
integrity
actually
significative
that"stickto the text"),thispolywhen theypromoteinterpretations
increasestheeconomicvalue ofanygiventextby
semousnesseffectively
"Theformoftheworkof
its
enhancing potentialreadingconfigurations.
to the numberof
artgainsits aestheticvaliditypreciselyin proportion
and
Eco
can
viewed
from
which
it
be
different
understood,"
perspectives
contends(TheRole49). Once again,thisattitudegroundstheRomantics'
theoriesof textualcontrolwithina semioticarenaplaguedwithloss by
repositioningthat loss as, instead,a desired plurality."To classical
was
as towhata signmightsignify
Bosseremarks,
thought,"
"uncertainty
modernthought,
lackofknowledgeofwhatitrepresented-to
uncertainty
as towhata signmightsignify
willcharacterize
anydiscoursethattouches
on theinterlocutors'
existence"
(229).
The traffic
ofsignsin Keats'sode is constantly
jammedand reroutedin
the
to
thismanner,
readers
unable
anticipate nextavenuestheywill
leaving
thattheirdirectives
the
encounter,
origespeciallyconsidering possibility
inatein a visionor a dream.Throughtheirabilityto generatea formof
readersshouldbe ableto effect
fromthisdislocation,
however,
enjoyment
In thissense,the"negative"
venture.
a satisfactory
from
such
a
reading
elementof NegativeCapabilityoffersthe potentialof an entirelyopen
ratherthanthesourceofan undesirable
experience,
reading.35

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ScottSimpkins

29

NOTES
Heinrich Bosse, "The Marvellous and RomanticSemiotics,"Studiesin Romanticism14
(Summer1975):211.
2 Dean MacCannell and JulietFlowerMacCannell,TheTimeoftheSign:A Semiotic
InterpretationofModernCulture(Bloomington:Indiana UP,1982).
3 G6rardGenette,"The ProustianParatexte,"SubStance17,2 (1988): 63-77.

R. Paulson,TheNoiseofCulture:
Textsina World
4 William
Literary
(Ithaca:
ofInformation
CornellUP 1988)14.
5 Roland Barthes,"Wrestlingwith the
Angel: TextualAnalysisof Genesis 32: 23-33,"in The
Semiotic
trans.RichardHoward (New York:Hill and Wang,1988)251.
Challenge,
6 UmbertoEco, A TheoryofSemiotics
(Bloomington:Indiana UP,1976) 150.
intheSemiotics
7Eco,TheRoleoftheReader:Explorations
IndianaUP,
ofTexts(Bloomington:

1979)65; regardingthe notionof textualopenness,see also Eco's TheOpen Work,trans.Anna

Cancogni (Cambridge:HarvardUP,1989).
8 Barthes,"FromWorkto Text,"in TheRustleofLanguage,trans.RichardHoward (Berkeley
and Los Angeles:U of CaliforniaP,1989)59.
9 Maria Corti,An Introduction
toLiterarySemiotics,
trans.MargheritaBogat and Allen Mandelbaum(Bloomington:Indiana UP,1978)79.
10David Simpson,IronyandAuthority
inRomanticPoetry
(Totowa,NJ:Rowmanand Littlefield,

179.
1979)

TheObstinate
Romanticism
11L. J.Swingle,
Questionings
ofEnglish
(BatonRouge:Louisiana

UP,1987)32.
12JohnKeats,TheLettersofJohnKeats,ed. HyderE. Rollins,2 vols. (Cambridge:HarvardUP,
in Keats(New York:New YorkUP,1980)83.
1958)2: 193;BarryGradman,Metamorphosis
13Barthes,"Semanticsof the Object,"in TheSemioticChallenge186.
14Earl Wasserman,TheFinerTone:Keats'sMajorPoems(Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UP, 1953)
178.
15PercyBysshe Shelley,The CompleteWorksofPercyBysshe
Shelley,ed. Roger Ingpen and
WalterPeck,10vols. (New York:GordianP,1%5) 2: 116.
16Candace Lang, Irony/Humor:
CriticalParadigms(Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UP,1988)3.
17 For extendedcommentaryon the notion of
structuration,see Barthes's The Semiotic

Challenge.

18RobertHodge and GuntherKress,SocialSemiotics

(Ithaca: CornellUP,1988)230.
Poems,ed. JackStillinger(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUP,1982)279-81.
9 Keats,Complete
Barthes,"Introductionto the StructuralAnalysisof Narratives,"in TheSemiotic
Challenge
122. Hereafterreferredto as "Introduction."

21Roman Jakobson,"Metalanguageas a LinguisticProblem,"in TheFramework

ofLanguage
(MichiganStudies in the Humanities,1980)81.

ErvingGoffman,
FrameAnalysis:
An Essayon theOrganization
(Boston:
ofExperience

Northeastern 1974)307.
UP,
23On the significanceof wine in thispassage, see Gradman,87-88and Helen Vendler,The
Odes ofJohnKeats(Cambridge:HarvardUP,1983)87-90.
It is hardlysurprising,then,thatthispassage would constitutewhat CynthiaChase calls
"the mostvariouslyinterpretedlines of the
poem" in Decomposing
Figures:Rhetorical
Readings
in theRomanticTradition
(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUP,1986)65.
ofreadingsthatview thispassage positivelywould seem to suggestthat
25The proliferation
thisis, in fact,the mostcommon
readersmake. Forcommentary
this
interpretation
reflecting
reading,see Leslie Brisman,RomanticOrigins(Ithaca: Cornell
1978)80-84;CharlesRzepka,
UP,

TheSelfas Mind:Vision
andIdentity
inWordsworth,
Coleridge,
andKeats(Cambridge:
HarvardUP,

1986) 174-75;David Pollard,ThePoetryofKeats:Languageand Experience

(Totowa,New Jersey:

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30

South CentralReview

Barnes and Noble, 1984) 64; Gradman89; RichardFogle, The Permanent

Pleasure:Essays on
ClassicsofLiterature
(Athens:U of GeorgiaP,1974) 106;and Vendler91.
on theimplications
ofthenightingale'ssong,see Vendler,77-81,
26Forextendedcommentary
106-107.
27This observationthusrunscounterto Chase's contentionthatKeatscharacterizespoetry
associated withNegative Capabilityas "a poetryof sensationsratherthan thoughts"(80).
28Rzepka 174.
29 For a selection of insightfulcommentaryon Keats's concludingstrategy,see Barbara
HerrnsteinSmith,PoeticClosure:A StudyofHow PoemsEnd (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1968)
127-28,230-31;Paul de Man, "Introductionto the Poetryof JohnKeats," in CriticalWritings,
1953-1978,ed. Lindsay Waters(Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1989) 189; Harold Bloom,The

A Reading
Romantic
(Ithaca:CornellUP,1971)412;Jack
Visionary
Company:
Poetry
ofEnglish
andOther
TheHoodwinking
Stillinger,
ofMadeline
EssaysonKeats'sPoems(Urbana:U ofIllinois

"Yeatsand theGreaterRomanticLyric,"inRomantic
P,1971)107; Gradman94; GeorgeBornstein,
and Modern:Revaluations
ed. GeorgeBornstein(Pittsburgh:U ofPittsburgh
Tradition,
ofLiterary
P,1977)94; Fogle 109-110;and Vendler105-107.
Semiotics
30Michael Riffaterre,
ofPoetry(Bloomington:Indiana UP,1978)5. "Ashe progresses
throughthe textthe readerrememberswhat he has just read and modifieshis understanding
of it in the lightof what he is now decoding. As he works forwardfromstartto finish,he is
adds (5-6). "The reader's manufacture
reviewing,revising,comparingbackwards,"Riffaterre
of meaning is . . . not so much a progress
thepoemand a half-random
accretionof
through
verbalassociations,as itis a seesawscanningof the text"(166 emphasisadded).
31For extendeddiscussionof such cues, see ScottSimpkins,"GeorgeSand and the Role of

AnnualSemiotic
Semiotic
1986:Proceedings
Cues,"in Semiotics
oftheEleventh
Society
ofAmerica

Meeting,ed. JohnDeely and JonathanEvans (Lanham,MD: UP of America,1987)61-67.

32Chase 67.

inNarrative:
andEthics
From
toLacan(NewHaven:Yale
33GaryJ.Handwerk,
Irony
Schlegel

UP,1985) 11.
34A good exampleof the potentialcriticalresponsesthisapproachengenderscan be found
in RichardRand's playfulessay,"Ozone: an essay on Keats,"in Post-structuralist
Readingsof
EnglishPoetry,ed. RichardMachin and ChristopherNorris(Cambridge:CambridgeUP,1987)
294-307.
35In thisessay I drawon materialfrom"NegativeCapabilities:ShiftingSignsin Keats's'Ode
to a Nightingale,'"a paper presentedat the SemioticSocietyof Americameetingin 1988. See

AnnualSemiotic
alsothepublished
1988:Proceedings
versioninSemiotics
Society
oftheThirteenth
ofAmericaMeeting,ed. TerryPrewittet al. (Lanham,MD: UP of America,1989)374-79.

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:32:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions