Live-Blogging Kalamazoo: Thursday 13:30
May. 10th, 2012 02:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hrjWomen and the Troubadours
Ventriloquists, Female Impersonators and/or the Genuine Article? Putting Words in Women’s Mouths -- Matilda Bruckner, Boston College
Intro on the entertainment appeal of ventriloquism, contrasted with issues of power and appropriation when "putting words in someone's mouth". In "conversational" poetry, what does authenticity mean when the "persona" of the poem also voices his/her antagonist? Might some of the harsh portrayals of disdainful lovers in troubadour lyrics be simply a conventionalized "stage personality" used as a strawman for the author to argue against rather than an actual person? In the focal work by Marcabru being analyzed here, this ventriloquism is complicated in that the author himself appears as a 3rd person referent in one of the stanzas ("Marcabru says her [the disdainful woman's] door is never closed"). So is the persona of the poem meant to be a separate character -- as much an invention as the lady in question -- or is he meant to be the author himself, but with a little misdirection?
In another poem by the same author, the author/persona emplys a starling as messenger who flies back and forth repeating his words to the lady; the lady's to him. As a mimic, a starling would seem to be the perfect messenger, but the choice emphasizes the aspect of "putting words in another's mouth". But as presented, the bird condenses and alters the message of each to the other, pointing the problems of taking at face value the words reported by another. Despite this, the starling succeeds in bringing the lovers together (which appeared unlikely from the positions presented by their original speeches). In sum, one must use language falsely in order to present the "truth" implied in the poem (but the truth of the author, not of objective reality).
In Q&A, the question was raised whether we should interpret these works as an overt work of fictional drama (possibly performed by multiple people as such) rather than the more common interpretation as a personal semi-autobiographical expression.
The Trobairitz and Flamenca -- Juliet O’Brien, Univ. of British Columbia
(This paper assumes more familiarity with the text being analyzed than I have, and the handout is untranslated, so I've probably misunderstood some of the discussion. Plot of the romance: Flamenca's jealous husband locks her up in a tower, only letting her out for Mass and baths, but her maids are on her side ....)
The paper covers 3 things: looking at feminine voice composition; looking at feminine poets; looking at the use of "trobair(itz)" in the work Flamenca in general. A poetic dialogue (tenso) is embedded in the romance that emerges only from the quoted words of the characters: Flamenca via leading questions and Guillem (her lover?) in his answers. But who is the "author" of this poem? The maid Margarida appears to be presented as the creator of the lines with Flamenca approving and laboriously learning them, but it is the dialogue between Flamenca and Guillem that "creates" the poem. And the creation of the questions that drive the composition seems to be a bit of a game played jointly by Flamenca and her maids.
The poem is credited(?) with being the first appearance of the word "trobaritz", based on a bit of word-play. The usually credited authorial voice appears early in the poem as a character, but there are other characters with opportunity, means, and motive (i.e., who could have witnessed the events being described in the romance, and who would have the skill to have "composed" the internal poem) and some of them are women. But whatever the intention, the romance is very much about the act of composition and how a tenso might have been composed as a group amusement, rather than as a single-author work.
The Publicly Intimate Frustrations of the Trobairitz -- Katherine Leese, Ohio State Univ.
(This paper must have been scratched. A pity.)
Azalais de Porcairagues: A New Look -- William D. Paden, Northwestern Univ.; Frances Paden, Northwestern Univ.
Text is a poem that begins with a lament for one lover (dead? lost?) but shifts later to joy in a present lover. Is it a piecing together of two unrelated works or is the "death" early on metaphoric or what? A look at the imagery as representing betrothal and marriage. We now get a brief history of the evolution of betrothal/marriage and their forms and requirements. The delay after betrothal had multiple justifications: that the bride would be more valued for being longed for rather than handed over immediately, but also considerations of financial arrangements with the bride being in a bit of financial limbo between the two events.
The beginning of the poem invokes a winter landscape representing grief and loss. The implication is that the author/speaker's fiance has died after betrothal but before marriage, making the loss both a financial as well as an emotional wound. The poem moves on to bemoaning the mixing of love and financial considerations, saying that a lady who takes money in account is no better than a peasant. The next stanza raises a present-tense lover "of great worth" who requires no bargaining but gives love freely. The suggested interpretation is that this is the dead finace, but becuase the potential for financial gain is lost, his love is now made more pure and noble. Now she is able to return to her grief but without the bleakness. The poem concludes with an address to the performer (joglar) who will carry the work to an unnamed woman in Narbonne (a name was suggested but I didn't get it down -- possibly someone in her late fiance's family?).
Ventriloquists, Female Impersonators and/or the Genuine Article? Putting Words in Women’s Mouths -- Matilda Bruckner, Boston College
Intro on the entertainment appeal of ventriloquism, contrasted with issues of power and appropriation when "putting words in someone's mouth". In "conversational" poetry, what does authenticity mean when the "persona" of the poem also voices his/her antagonist? Might some of the harsh portrayals of disdainful lovers in troubadour lyrics be simply a conventionalized "stage personality" used as a strawman for the author to argue against rather than an actual person? In the focal work by Marcabru being analyzed here, this ventriloquism is complicated in that the author himself appears as a 3rd person referent in one of the stanzas ("Marcabru says her [the disdainful woman's] door is never closed"). So is the persona of the poem meant to be a separate character -- as much an invention as the lady in question -- or is he meant to be the author himself, but with a little misdirection?
In another poem by the same author, the author/persona emplys a starling as messenger who flies back and forth repeating his words to the lady; the lady's to him. As a mimic, a starling would seem to be the perfect messenger, but the choice emphasizes the aspect of "putting words in another's mouth". But as presented, the bird condenses and alters the message of each to the other, pointing the problems of taking at face value the words reported by another. Despite this, the starling succeeds in bringing the lovers together (which appeared unlikely from the positions presented by their original speeches). In sum, one must use language falsely in order to present the "truth" implied in the poem (but the truth of the author, not of objective reality).
In Q&A, the question was raised whether we should interpret these works as an overt work of fictional drama (possibly performed by multiple people as such) rather than the more common interpretation as a personal semi-autobiographical expression.
The Trobairitz and Flamenca -- Juliet O’Brien, Univ. of British Columbia
(This paper assumes more familiarity with the text being analyzed than I have, and the handout is untranslated, so I've probably misunderstood some of the discussion. Plot of the romance: Flamenca's jealous husband locks her up in a tower, only letting her out for Mass and baths, but her maids are on her side ....)
The paper covers 3 things: looking at feminine voice composition; looking at feminine poets; looking at the use of "trobair(itz)" in the work Flamenca in general. A poetic dialogue (tenso) is embedded in the romance that emerges only from the quoted words of the characters: Flamenca via leading questions and Guillem (her lover?) in his answers. But who is the "author" of this poem? The maid Margarida appears to be presented as the creator of the lines with Flamenca approving and laboriously learning them, but it is the dialogue between Flamenca and Guillem that "creates" the poem. And the creation of the questions that drive the composition seems to be a bit of a game played jointly by Flamenca and her maids.
The poem is credited(?) with being the first appearance of the word "trobaritz", based on a bit of word-play. The usually credited authorial voice appears early in the poem as a character, but there are other characters with opportunity, means, and motive (i.e., who could have witnessed the events being described in the romance, and who would have the skill to have "composed" the internal poem) and some of them are women. But whatever the intention, the romance is very much about the act of composition and how a tenso might have been composed as a group amusement, rather than as a single-author work.
The Publicly Intimate Frustrations of the Trobairitz -- Katherine Leese, Ohio State Univ.
(This paper must have been scratched. A pity.)
Azalais de Porcairagues: A New Look -- William D. Paden, Northwestern Univ.; Frances Paden, Northwestern Univ.
Text is a poem that begins with a lament for one lover (dead? lost?) but shifts later to joy in a present lover. Is it a piecing together of two unrelated works or is the "death" early on metaphoric or what? A look at the imagery as representing betrothal and marriage. We now get a brief history of the evolution of betrothal/marriage and their forms and requirements. The delay after betrothal had multiple justifications: that the bride would be more valued for being longed for rather than handed over immediately, but also considerations of financial arrangements with the bride being in a bit of financial limbo between the two events.
The beginning of the poem invokes a winter landscape representing grief and loss. The implication is that the author/speaker's fiance has died after betrothal but before marriage, making the loss both a financial as well as an emotional wound. The poem moves on to bemoaning the mixing of love and financial considerations, saying that a lady who takes money in account is no better than a peasant. The next stanza raises a present-tense lover "of great worth" who requires no bargaining but gives love freely. The suggested interpretation is that this is the dead finace, but becuase the potential for financial gain is lost, his love is now made more pure and noble. Now she is able to return to her grief but without the bleakness. The poem concludes with an address to the performer (joglar) who will carry the work to an unnamed woman in Narbonne (a name was suggested but I didn't get it down -- possibly someone in her late fiance's family?).
