Abstract
In this article, I work with the hypothesis that the beginning and the end of artistic texts are strongly semantically marked places that influence interpretation of texts as a whole. According to Lotman (1977), the beginning of a text often activates the most important codes that are present in the main part of the text, while the ending is often the place where a layer of mythological meaning is added to the text by transcending the singular case and adding a universal layer of meaning.
The aim of this article is to establish to what extent theories about cyclic narrative structures and the importance of the beginning and end of a text can be made applicable to the volume of poetry grondwater by Marlise Joubert. It will be established by means of text analysis to what extent specific symbols that appear in the text are markers that affect the interpretation of the volume as a whole. In the second place, it must be determined which, if any, aspects of coherence and cohesion bind the text together as a whole.
The first main point deals with the cyclical structure of the volume and explores the extent to which the beginning and the end of the text can be considered as strongly marked places. The influence of these parts of the text on interpretation is considered. In the second main point, the semantic impact of the wolf, the mother, the ground and the water symbols is scrutinized.
The aim of the first main point is to determine in what way the text frame influences the interpretation of the text as a whole. “Framing” is an inherent structural aspect of all texts. After all, a text is more than a simple stringing together of syntagmatic elements with two boundaries (the beginning and the end). In artistic texts, there is an internal organization that brings the syntagmatic elements together into a meaningful unit. Goffman (1974:21) regards literary frames as useful for giving meaning to narrative versions of events and for guiding interpretation of texts as a whole in order to meaningfully interpret the apparently meaningless sequence of events as they occur in “real life”. The purpose of a cyclical structure in literary works is often to revisit the initial events or original theme in order to add a deeper or universal layer of meaning to the text.
“Framing” also indicates boundaries. From a literary-theoretical point of view, an important aspect of textual frames is that they contain codes that are relevant for the interpretation and reception of the literary work (see also Lotman 1977:106). In terms of structure, grondwater resembles the cyclic frame narrative (see Johl 2002:415), as the first and last poems show striking similarities to each other. The three first and last poems “frame” the volume of poems, as it were, in that the most important themes, symbols and codes are present in these poems.
Regarding text frames as meaningful aspects of a text, Lotman (1977:209–10) argues that “a work of art is a finite model of an infinite universe”. He claims that, in modern texts, each of the categories “beginning” and “end” of a text fulfils a separate function (Lotman 1977:216). The beginning of a text has an important codifying function in the sense that the most important codes that guide the narrative are usually already present there. In contrast, the conclusion of a text often has a mythological function, namely “[to] reflect everything in the form of pure essences” (Lotman 1977:211).
In the analysis of the text, it is illustrated how the initial codes emerge throughout the text and, in relation to the conclusion, the focus is on answering the following important questions: Are the initial codes retrospectively and evaluatively found in the conclusion? Does it appear that the speaker has finally come to “deeper” insights? Is the “I” in the last three poems a more experienced (perhaps even wiser) person than the “I” who emerges in the opening poems?
In the second main point, the semantic function of certain archetypal symbols, namely the wolf, mother, ground and water symbols, is accounted for. It is shown that symbols involving the two words from which the title is composed, namely “water” and “ground”, directly and indirectly, occur repeatedly in the volume. Furthermore, it is shown that, although the wolf symbol does not appear explicitly anywhere other than in the first poem, this symbol, which in many respects fulfils the same archetypal function as the mother symbol, indeed forms one of the semantic supporting points on which meaning is generated, and that this symbol shows a strong resemblance to the water symbol. I argue that the ground symbol can often be connected with the water symbol, for example in the symbol of the windmill that brings water from the deep to the surface. All the above symbols are considered archetypal symbols – symbols that we create to give meaning to our lives.
The opening poem can be regarded as a creation myth in which the most important codes are present. The wolf as an archetypal symbol of the mother, as well as other symbols that have the same archetypal value, appears here and throughout the text. The mother archetype is connected with transcendent qualities such as life-giving, love, comfort and healing and, in psychoanalytical terms, this symbol demonstrates important similarities with the water symbol.
In the last three poems, the reference to the poet’s parents as a couple might be interpreted as a cyclical reference to the beginning of the text in which the parents are referred to as a “wolf pair”. This indicates that the parental couple has archetypal meaning here; that they lose their personal and gender identity to make a “mythological (universal) statement” (Jung 1975:257–64).
Like references to the mother, the water symbol also occurs repeatedly. Jung (1976:319–20) points out that water is the “most maternal” symbol and often connects it with the womb (cf. Jung 1976:309–10, 320, 329) and with the beginning of a spiritual journey. He regards water as the most common symbol of man’s unconscious and argues that contact with water points to spiritual purification and that immersion in water always precedes spiritual growth (Jung, 1976:319–20) and might often be interpreted as a symbol of death and resurrection. The symbol of the borehole (the “groundwater” of the title) can be related to Jung’s theory that descent into the depths is an important act that precedes spiritual growth and purification.
Ultimately, it could not be argued unequivocally that the ending stands out clearly as a mythological conclusion that reflects the preceding part of the text in the form of “pure essence” (Lotman 1977:211). It is indeed the case that in the last poems retrospective reference is made to all the codes from the beginning of the text – something that typically occurs in creation myths. However, close reading of the ending does not explicitly indicate that the poet (“I”) who is present throughout the text has come to deeper insights and is a more experienced and wiser person than the young woman to whom the poems in the beginning of the text refer.
If the conclusion indeed fulfils a genuine mythological function, this is subtly built into the text. Thus it should be clear that the practice of text construction does not necessarily follow the theory and that (smaller) deviations from the theoretical norm are the rule and not the exception. A further reason why the conclusion does not clearly stand out as a mythological, universal or transcendent “expansion” of the preceding text and why it could be argued that we are not dealing with a “genuine cyclical structure” is because the collection of poetry as a whole deals with mythological (transcendent/universal) values and because the symbols referred to above have universal meaning throughout the text. The question then is: shouldn’t this collection (which, although not Marlise Joubert’s last, is a collection that contains typical late work) not be read in its entirety as part of a mythological “conclusion” or end of her oeuvre? If the poet’s entire oeuvre is read within Lotman’s theory about the beginning and end of texts, such a study should shed informative light on Joubert’s work as a whole.
It also appears that symbols and codes contribute to the cohesion and coherence of the text, binding the poems together as a unit, serve as semantic anchors and even lend a degree of narrativity to the text. The archetypal symbols used act as referential links that add additional layers of meaning to the text. The most important symbols are present both in the frame and the “inner text”. On the one hand, the symbols in the frame load the “inner text” with meaning, but the symbols in the “inner text” also expand the meaning of the “frame” and thus form a cyclical structure.
Keywords: archetypal symbols; autobiography; borehole as a symbol; codifying function of textual beginnings; cyclic texts; “groundwater”, Marlise Joubert; Jurij Lotman text structure; late work (of author); myth; mythological function of text endings; symbol; water as a symbol; windmill as a symbol; wolf as a symbol