[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etekdZ_y0sM[/youtube]One should, in short, always split the courtly message into an M1, made up of a literal signification and having the Lady as a referential object; and an M2, referring to joy alone and whose sign is the song but also the excess of meaning, the "more-than-meaning" brought in by indefinite syntax, paradox, or metaphoricalness in the very vocabulary. The referent of M2 is paradoxical at the very least, for, as the joy of song, it finishes off the incantation in the very process of the subject of the utterance act in his performative jouissance. Is this an apotheosis of narcissism? Or is the acknowledgment, beyond the confusion of references ("she" is often, for the troubadour, the song [which is feminine in French] as well as the lady), of incantation's conveying a meaning in motion that the linguistic uttering could not possibly assume: precisely the meaning of involvement, of loving identification. "I dare not speak, unless in song," the Châtelain de Coucy said.
Already a member?Log In
username or email
You can also reset your password
if you've forgotten it.
Not a member? Sign Up