• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    The Muted Lover and the Singing Poet:Ekphrasis and Gender in the Canzoniere*

    2019-11-12 23:08:45ZHONGBili
    國際比較文學(中英文) 2019年1期

    ZHONG Bili

    Abstract:Ekphrasis, a poetic genre termed as the “verbal representation of the visual representation” that reflects the relationship between word and image, plays an important role in the field of gender study.In ekphrasis, word/the male is said to dominate over or to suppress the silent image/the female.Petrarch's ekphrastic description of Laura has a strong tendency of fetishism in the Canzoniere.Laura is always presented in the poetry as some fragmental parts:pearl, gold, rose, snow, etc.This obsessively ekphrastic writing shows Petrarch's ambition and desire to “objectify” his lover, making her forever stagnant as a mute artwork that bears the gaze from the male.Unlike a lively lover that can interact with Petrarch, Laura is turned into an idol, an object out of reach but is always seized by the erotic gaze of the poet.In his project of objectifying Laura, the poet created his sol una donna1 Francesco Petrarca, Canzoniere, a cura di Marco Santagata (Milán:Mandadori, 2004), CXXVII, vv.12-14:“Dico che perch'io miri/ mille cose diverse attento et fiso/ sol una donna veggio e 'l suo bel viso.”.However, realizing the insubstantiality of language, he found that his empty words of poetics could never bring Laura to her presence.The forever absence of Laura, in turn, stimulates his desire to create an infinite number of sign-substitutions that eventually distort the feminine image.

    Keywords:ekphrasis; Petrarch; Canzoniere; gender; poetics

    Ekphrasis in Gender

    “Paintings, like women, are ideally silent, beautiful creatures designed for the gratification of the eye, in contrast to the sublime eloquence proper to the manly art of poetry.Paintings are confined to the narrow sphere of external display of their bodies and of the space which they ornament, while poems are free to range over an infinite realm of potential action and expression, the domain of time, discourse, and history.

    The well-known expression of J.T.W.Mitchell has pointed out the sharp antagonism between painting and poetry, and how such an antagonism has been turned into a canonic battlefield in the studies of gender.Painting, long assumed to be deprived of voice, has been forced to remain silent and to be fixed in space; while poetry, based on the power of words, is endowed with the ability to “speak out” and to reach out for its desired object.Being an art of time, poetry is able to transcend the spatial limitation that imprisons painting.As always, man is the side that owns the power of voice, while woman has long been petrified as a beautiful artwork, or as a stagnant, silent object which has to tolerate the erotic gaze from man.Simone de Beauvoir had a famous description of how woman is “objectified”:

    While the boy seeks himself in the penis as an autonomous subject, the little girl coddles her doll and dresses her up as she dreams of being coddled and dressed up herself:inversely, she thinks of herself as a marvelous doll.By means of compliments and scolding, through images and words, she learns the meaning of the terms pretty and homely; she soon learns that in order to be pleasing she must be “pretty as picture”:she tries to make herself look like a picture, she puts on fancy clothes, she studies herself in a mirror, she compares herself with princesses and fairies.

    In the process of objectification, woman is guided to image herself as a “picture” that makes no sound.Falling into the obscure silence, the identity of woman, at the same time, is generally fading away, making space for the controlling voice of man.According to Beauvoir, woman not knowing what she “l(fā)ooks like,” only knows what she “should look like” in the definition by man.The image of woman is made instead of born, and this has become an innate consciousness rooted in woman's mind that it seems almost “natural”—one is hardly aware that it is “man”-made.Thus, the outlook of woman, whether historically or socially, is, to a large extent, based on the description by man:she could be a “petrified” lady who is cruel and cold-hearted; or she could be an angelic creature with docile voice and flowery face.No matter in which form, or in which figure, woman hardly has any right to speak for herself.The narrative system, suggested by Derrida, is controlled by a “male-center” from the very beginning.

    The aesthetic antithesis of word and image has further revealed a more drastic literary competition between spoken language and silence.The presence of the self is said to be established through narrative.Petrarch's opening sonnet is a good example:

    Voi ch'ascoltate in rime sparse il

    suono

    di quei sospiri ond'io nudriva 'l core

    in sul mio primo giovenile errore,

    quand' era in parte altr' uom da quell ch'i'

    sono

    (

    Can

    .I, 1-4)In the narration of “I cry,” “I suffer,” “I sign,” the self—“sono”—is made manifest by the voice —“suono.” The spoken language, placed on the top of the Platonic hierarchy of aesthetics, guarantees the presence of the author himself, from whom all its credits are derived.In the first poem of the

    Canzoniere

    , readers cannot find any traces of Laura, and what leaves to them is an impressive image of Petrarch—a penitent man who is always crying and sighing.Not until the Sonnet V does the name Laura appear, but in the form of fragments:

    LAUdando s' incomincia udir di fore

    il suon de' primi dolci accenti suoi.

    Vostro stato REal, che 'ncontro poi,

    raddoppia a l' alta impresa il mio valore;

    ma:TAci, grida il fin, ché farle honore

    è d' altri homeri soma che da' tuoi.

    Cosí LAUdare et REverire insegna (

    Can

    .V, 3-9)

    Like Diana who scattered Actaeon, he scattered Laura.But when it comes to the song LII, we find that it is Petrarch who took the role of Actaeon, peeking the nude body/the veil of Laura, but he escaped the tragedy of being scattered and suffered no punishments.Therefore, Petrarch is at once Diana who made Laura fragmented and Actaeon who satisfied his desire without penalty.This is the advantage of the speaking voice.Laura's fragmental identity is not capable of possessing a voice in the Petrarchan textual dimension.Only Petrarch the author has the absolute control of speaking.Though Laura's image is omnipresent in the poems, such a fact cannot produce the real presence of the woman since she is too weak to announce herself.

    Also in this sonnet, Petrarch first introduced the mythology of Apollo and Daphne.We know that Daphne, unable to resist the severe pursuit of Apollo, has been transformed into a laurel, from a living woman to a fixed tree.The end of the story is characterized with intense fetishism:Apollo makes Daphne into a symbol, an icon that only belongs to him——claiming to exempt the tree from any thunder strikes, Apollo is at the same time claiming his sovereignty of the laurel.Daphne, after being transformed into a fixed tree, has lost her voice to make a reject and to ask for help.Reluctant as she is, she can do nothing but finally become a dead symbol for her lover.Similarly, Petrarch, in the place of Apollo/male power, has iconized Laura, rendering her as a cold sign instead of a living life.The diffusion of Laura's image lays foundation for her further reification.Though Petrarch seemed to be forbidden to make a sound about Laura in

    Sonnet

    V, he did not stop but let his desire to grow wilder:“Sì traviato è ‘l folle mi desio/ a seguitar costei che 'n fuga è volta” (

    Can.

    VI, 1-2).When the story reaches

    Sonnet

    VIII, readers found that Laura had already been parted:“A pie' de' colli ove la bella vesta/ prese de terrene

    membra pria

    .” (

    Can

    .VIII, 1-2) Laura is depicted not as a complete woman, but as something scattered beneath her beautiful dress.The process of dispersion continues, until Laura is reified entirely:in

    Sonnet

    XI, Laura has eventually been replaced by her

    veil

    .Our poet exclaimed that the veil alone could arouse his desire:“si mi governa il velo.” (

    Can.

    XI, 12) The veil has completely replaced Laura the person:in the song LII, Petrarch was able to “see” Laura's nude body at the sight of her veil:“posta a bagnar un leggiadretto velo / ch'a l'aura il vago et biondo capel ciuda” (CII, 5-6).In the following sonnet, the XII, Petrarch continued to amplify his project of objecting Laura, substituting her with “things” such as gold, silver, garlands and clothes.During the whole process of reification, we cannot hear a word uttered from Laura, nor can we know her feelings.Like a silent artwork, she has been displayed, depicted and conquered.

    Petrarch's description of Laura with various objects has brought our attention to the ekphrasis, perhaps the best medium to display the conflict between “male/voice vs.female/silence.” It is more generally known as “giving voice to a mute art object,” or offering “a rhetorical description of a work of art”; when viewed from the perspective of gender, it is often described as a process in which the masculine voice of poetry tries to dominate the silent painting.As said by Heffernan, the contest staged by ekphrasis is:

    often powerfully gendered:the expression of a duel between male and female gazes, the voice of male speech striving to control a female image that is both alluring and threatening, of male narrative striving to overcome the fixating impact of beauty poised in space.

    Admittedly, poetry can compensate the absence of voice within painting; however, it is hard to define whether poetry is speaking

    of

    painting or

    for

    painting.More problems are produced rather than solved:for example, what gives the authority to poetry to speak for the painting? Does the activity of speaking authentically reflect what the painting is? In other words, is the poetic language, the art of time, fully capable of mastering the art of space? While the activity of speaking seems to be an aggressive transgression that invades silence, and an ineffaceable desire to control and to represent painting, the painting in turn is considered as a negative force that quenches the voice:

    Medusa is the perfect prototype for the image as a dangerous female other who threatens to silence the poet's voice and fixate his observing eye ...Medusa fully epitomizes the ambivalence that Keats hints at:instead of “teasing us out of thought” with a paralyzing eternity of perfect desolation, she paralyzes thought itself, first, by turning “the gazer's spirit into stone,” and then by engraving the lineaments of the Gorgon onto the beholder's petrified spirit.

    In this way, the domination of the speaking voice over the painting is justified and moralized.The justification of such a domination has its counterpart in the theological realm.The impulse to represent the nature is derived from the primitive desire of human language:to return to the status before fallen.As is termed by Krieger, this is “the semiotic desire for the natural sign”:

    The desire, that is, to have the world captured in the word, the word that belongs to it, or better yet, the word to which

    it

    belongs.This desire to see the world in the word is that, after Derrida, we come to term the logocentric desire.”

    It is because only the Word of God can be “thing,” while human language is nothing but “signs”:

    The author of holy Scripture is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but by things themselves.So, whereas in every other science things are by words, this science has the property that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification.

    God created the world by his Word, and from the Word all creations were born out of nothing.Ekphrasis, by seeking to recreate an artificial object with its verbal activities, fulfills its inveterate desire to be a “thing.” By rendering an illusionary, living artwork in front of the readers, ekphrasis creates a counterfeit immediacy, a fake presence that endeavors to rival with the true presence of “things.” However, such a presence cannot compete with the real artwork:“even if that illusionary presence, however “picturesque” it may be, is not “picturable.”

    Analogously, Petrarch's ekphrastic description of Laura cannot guarantee her

    presence

    :no matter how real the image of Laura is, Petrarch still sensed her absence, which drove him to search, wandering restlessly from mountain to mountain, from river to river.Perhaps the long canzones CXXVII and CXXIX are the best examples.In

    Canzone

    CXXVII, Petrarch showed a picturesque description:Spring, flowers and Laura's body that were surrounded by these things.He constructed a Spring that was bound to lose, fading with its green leaves, violets, roses, vermillion, the velvet sky and stars:“In tamo fronde o ver viole in terra/ mirando a la stagion che 'l freddo perde/ et le stele miglior acquistan forza” (

    Can.

    CXXVII, 29-31).Everywhere he looked at and everything he watched reminded him of Laura, and in the water as well as in the grass, he could see her face:“I' l'ò più volte (or chi fi ache mi 'l creda?) / ne l'acqua Chiara et sopra l'erva verde” (

    Can

    .CXXIX, 40-41).Though seeing million things in the world, his mind was fixed upon the very lady:“Dio che perch' io miri/ mille cose diverse attento et fiso, sol una donna veggio e 'l suo bel viso” (

    Can.

    CXXVII, 12-14).Each stanza of

    Canzone

    CXXVII is ended with the poet's wanting for Laura:“veggio lei giunta a'supi perfetti giorni” (ibid

    ,

    28); “che ricopria le pargolette membra/ dove oggi alberga l'anima gentile/ ch' ogni altro piacer vile” (ibid

    ,

    36-38); “et del caldo desio/ che quando sospirando ella sorride/ m'ingiamma si che oblio” (ibid, 52-54); “parmel veder quando si volge altrove/ lassando tenebroso onde si move” (ibid, 69-70).Petrarch admitted, to his eyes, Laura was always there:“perch' a gli occhi mici lassi/

    sempre è presente

    , ond' io tutto mi struggo; et così meco stassi” (ibid

    ,

    94-96, the italic is mine).However, ironically, Laura was never

    there

    , and all Petrarch recalled were only his memories:“torna a la mente il loco/ e 'l primo dì ch' I' vidi a l'aura sparsi” (ibid

    ,

    82-83).He already realized this was an illusion, a mistake, as he called it, but he would like his error to last:“in tante parti et sì bella la veggio/ che se l'error durasse, altro non cheggio” (

    Can

    .CXXIX, 38-39).Petrarch's constant desiring for Laura reveals the fact of her forever

    absence

    :his poetics, though picturesque, still cannot rival with the true Laura.However, her

    absence

    seems not to effect anything, since the reification of Laura has accomplished.A small part of Laura or her wearing is enough to make the poet burnt with desires:“I capei d'oro ond' io sì subito arsi” (

    Can.

    CXXVII, 84).The Petrarchan fetishism has expelled the

    presence

    of the

    vera

    women.

    From Petrarch's descriptions, we can see the overwhelming power of speaking voice possessed by ekphrasis.The speaking voice, transformed into the violence of male, forces the feminine artwork to be silent.But why voice is considered more essential than silent object? And why the invisible voice can be the most valid evidence for the presence of self? If we were to understand the revolution brought by the ekphrasis to the realm of art, literature, history and even of ideology, we have to re-consider the text-image relationship in the complexities of the relations of individuals, classes, genders and cultures, and we have to investigate the historical conditions that sustain those relations.By observing the word” material”, we find that it has a similar origin with the word “mother”—mater.According to Levi Strauss and Freud, the relationship between mother and child is more of material:the child knows his own mama through the physical contacts such as touching, sucking and hugging; and his needs for mother are, principally, food and warm dwelling.On the contrary, his relationship with his father is more inclined to spirit and mind.In many story-telling archetypes, a father teaches his son how to be a strong man and how to be excel from the peers.The father acts more like a mental tutor for the child.Analogously, through Mitchell's arguments, we can also see how Burke linked sublimity and beauty with the stereotypes of gender.For Burke, sublimity, based on pain, terror and vigorous exertion, is the masculine aesthetic mode while beauty, usually associated with littleness and sensual pleasure, is considered as “feminine”.His emphasis on the power of sublimity is paralleled to his strategy of “visual deprivation” in which “The father is remote, the mother intimate and accessible.”

    The two questions above will lead to a more appealing one:is it necessary for the silent painting to speak since there seems to be no definite privilege of ears over eyes? However, such a privilege does exist in history.The triumph of ears over the eyes, again, can find its origin from the Platonic aesthetics.The spoken language, not needing for the medium, can affect the audiences directly; while the written language, based on the non-transparent medium of signs, is regarded as dependent and has no autonomy.

    Theuth:And you now, father of these letters, have in your fondness for them said what is the opposite of their real effect.For this will produce a forgetting in the soul of those who learn these letters as they fail to exercise their memory, because those who put trust in writing recollect from outside with foreign signs...

    In Socrates' opinion, the written language is an invented sign system which only encourages laziness of our memories and makes us alienate from ourselves, while the spoken language is the most immediate method which can get rid of the efforts to re-present.The Platonic tradition eventually results in the superior status of the speaking voice.

    In the Middle Ages, the superiority of the speaking voice has been transformed into a Christian doctrine that celebrates the invisible/ears and distains the visible/eyes.Burke noted that “Even in the barbarous temples of the Americans at this day, they keep their idol in a dark part of the hut, which is consecrated to his worship.”This privilege was further solidified under the movement of iconoclasm:

    The invisible god of the Judeo-Christian tradition, with all his attendant prohibitions against visual representations, is simply the abstract perfection of this theory of sublimity.The word, the indirect verbal report, not the direct accessibility of the image, is the appropriate medium for this god.

    In the Christian context, the invisible Word of God, by repelling the visible image of the pagan gods, has confirmed the whole hierarch of aesthetics.The mute artwork is thus made inferior or even idolatrous.

    The most prominent example is the contract between “spirit and word,” which is originated from the difference between New Testament and Old Testament.The New Testament is figured as the spirit in heart, while the Old Testament, compared to the New, is word on the stony tablet.The spirit can give life while the word leads to death.The Christian tradition has emphasized so much the belief in “invisible” that God never appears in any concrete forms.Neither will he show up in any figures:only his voice can be heard.Moses heard his God at the Mount Sinai, and Saint Augustine completed his conversion after hearing the sacral voice that asked him to “take and read.” Ironically, after his conversion, the life of Monica, Augustine's mother, came to an end.The mysterious voice became the principle guide for Augustine's soul, while the female effect from Monica met its termination.The Christian mythology, highlighting the importance of speaking voice, tries to wipe out any tendency towards the love of image that may leads to idolatry.

    The authority of the speaking voice comes from its immediacy that simultaneously creates and confirms the existence of speaking subject, that is, the presence of God/Father.Silence, or the absence of voice, is given to female/mother, who performs with visible contacts.Just as argued by Freud, boy's gaze finds the female image threatening because woman, who lacks penis, is by nature jealous of man who owns it.The threat is crystalized in the light that woman will threat to castrate man's penis.The risk of castration is paralleled to silence:in the mythology of Medusa, we could also discover that the woman/painting/silence, who lacks the ability to speak, is threating to castrate the speaking voice of man.In the

    Canzoniere

    , Petrarch, indulging himself in the flame of love for Laura, always found himself under the force of robbing him of his sound.In

    Canzone

    XXIII, the poet described Laura who can took his heart away with just a glance (“col mirar,”

    Can

    .XXIII, 72), and who suffocated his speaking:“dicendo a me:‘Di ciò non far parola.'” (ibid, 74) Laura, being the symbol of Medusa, becomes a threat to Petrarch's poetry.But ironically, even such a threat is a poetic strategy by the male power, in which Laura is nothing more than an object:beautiful, cruel, cold-hearted, fierce, always running from the poet or putting the poet in the vulnerable silence, but always passive in her own autonomy and dependent on Petrarch's voice to exist.Ekphrasis then becomes the literary realization that allows the speaking voice to prevail over the silent painting.In this logic, ekphrasis, a counterpart to the female threat, shows a fantasy of masculine masturbation and a verbal rape of the image.

    Petrarch's Ekphrastic Description of Laura

    Love or conquest? Ekphrasis offers a new standpoint to look at Petrarch's poetic creation of Laura.Do these love poems contribute to Laura herself or just a verbal satisfaction for Petrarch's imaginative masturbation? Throughout the

    Canzoniere

    , we only hear Petrarch's voices and his crying, but Laura the lover, the female figure, is always kept, or forced to be silent, and even made fragmented.The deprivation of voice is very interesting in the Petrarchan context.If we look into other Petrarch's works, we can find that being silent means invisible or absent to the consciousness.For example, in the prologue of Petrarch's

    Secretum

    , Saint Augustine was silent at first.Although he came into Francesco's room with the Truth, since he did not speak any word, Francesco could not even notice his presence.Only after Francesco's first conversation with the Truth was finished, did he discover there exist another person.The effect of silence is thrilling:even the person himself is present, as long as he cannot speak, it is absent to other's consciousness.That is, the presence of the body cannot equal to the presence of the self.The phenomenon of silence also can be found in Petrarch's writing about his climbing of Mount Ventoux.Having read the paragraphs of the

    Confessions

    , Petrarch, unlike Augustine who immediately shared his reading with Alypius, refused to talk with his brother and refused to let him hear what he had read.His forceful silence has at the same time muted his brother, and on his way down the mountain, they never exchanged even a word, as if Gherardo was not with him anymore.The silence forced upon Gherardo makes him withdraw from Petrarch's writing project and being expelled from the presence, as if he were made to remain forever on the mountain.The relationship between voice/presence and silence/absence can also be referred back to the Christian tradition.God never shows Himself in any particular form of physics, for his speaking voice alone is enough to guarantee His

    presence

    .The presence of God is in fact the presence of his voice.The presence of body is confined to space, while the presence of voice is omnipresent, diffusing through the passage of time and through the transition of ages, ensuring that His faithful people of every age can hear the calling of their God.The embodiment, or the physical/visible presence of body, under such a narrative and intellectual system, is made inferior to the invisible speaking voice.The invisible voice triumphs over the visible presence of the physical form.This is the phenomenon of the

    Canzoniere

    in which readers find Laura's body/parts are scattered everywhere, strung in the line of narrative by the voice of Petrarch.The fragments of her body are transformed into gold, pearls, diamonds, flowers, creating a beautifully ekphrastic scene to readers' eyes.At the meanwhile, Petrarch has muted Laura, making the

    Canzoniere

    a book of Francesco:

    Insomma, l'oggetto d'amore è assente, ma il soggetto è onipresente.Il messaggio implicito ma non nascosto è che il libro che segue sarà il libro di Francesco.

    The forever absent object/Laura has made these songs suspicious in their intention:it reveals that Petrarch, though claiming to write a songbook for Laura, actually aims to establish an identity of poet for himself.For readers, the image of Laura is never displayed or fully shown.Her flesh, her face and her presence are totally substituted by the fragmental metaphors that are “picturesque” by nature.It is difficult to perceive a complete outlook of Laura but one only gets the impression of a series of signs that are indistinguishable and ambiguous.One cannot tell if he is “watching” Laura the woman or a collective of “things”

    Laura acquista fattezze fisiche:non un ritratto a tutto tondo, che mai Petrarca dipingerà, ma

    una serie di riferimenti

    , ovviamente elogiativi,

    a singole parti anatomiche

    , dalle bionde trecce sciolte sul collo (?le bionde treccie sopra' l collo sciolte?) alle labbra che spiccano vermiglie sul candore del colto e si approno in un sorriso e in un saluto scoprendo i denti bianchi come l'avorio (?e le rise vermiglie in fra la neve/mover da l;oram a discovirir l'avorio?), fino al ?bel fianco?...

    In fact, it is the absence of Laura that makes possible the repetitive reification of her.Contrary to the logocentric universe, this Derridan universe makes possible the proliferation of the signs, leading to an endless game of reference and substation, and to a non-stopping figuration and disfiguration that again and again pulls Laura out of focus.

    The repetitive reification, rather than promising a complete image of the lover, actually deconstructs her:

    Deconstruction is created by repetitions, deviations, disfigurations.

    The reoccurrence of Laura through these vertiginous images ironically highlights her emptiness, which drives the poet to describe her more intensely.Laura's absence is, in fact, at once the reason and the result of Petrarch's endless writings.Petrarch created the image of Laura, but its literary nature can never endow it with the real substance.As argued by R.Waller, Laura was unable to stand outside and to transcend the literary systems she was made from, therefore she could never be an ontology like God:

    Like Petrarch's comments on the history of the world, his history of the self lacks the ontological grounding, the center, which would allow relationships between events, or even between moments, to emerge.Laura, as the desired center of the lover's existence, manifests the same inadequacies as Rome, taken as the center of human history.She is mortal and she is absent.

    The inadequacies of Laura, or more precisely, of the poetically created Laura, in turn stimulates and encourages the exceeding generation of more literary signs.The more Petrarch reifies her, the more she is alienated from her true form (vera forma), which draws the authentic her further from Petrarch.Perhaps the two long canzones XXIX-XXX are the best examples by which Petrarch made manifest his ekphrastic “capture” of Laura.The theme of both canzones is to display how Petrarch's crazy love for Laura drives him to wander restlessly “mi tira sì ch' io non sostegno/ alcun giogo men grave” (

    Can.

    XXIX, 6-7), “sospirando vo di riva in riva” (

    Can.

    XXX, 29), and both of them start with the verses describing Laura's beauty:she was dressed in finery clothes “Verdi panni sanguigni oscuri o persi” (

    Can.

    XXIX, 1), with long, golden hairs “d'or capelli in bionda treccia” (ibid

    ,

    3), and her face is whiter than snow “vidi più Bianca et più fredda che neve” (

    Can

    .XXX, 2).To display her cruelness, our poet pictured her as a “hard laurel” (“duro lauro,”

    Can.

    XXX, 23) made of diamonds and gold “à I rami di diamante et d'or le chiome.” The only presence of Laura's name—“L'auro”— in the final stanza is also incorporated in the metaphor of gold, and we readers, instead of knowing what Laura is like, only see a fine collection of jewelry.His idolatrous love for Laura subjects her in an oppressive poetic space which is like an art object imprisoned in the frame.Laura never allows to speak, or to express her own emotions towards these praises forced upon her; her beauty is inert, just as how Petrarch described her in this very poem:a quiet, cold lady sitting under the shade of laurel “Giovene donna sotto un verde lauro/ vidi piú biancha et piú fredda” (

    Can.

    XXX, 1).Her coldness, symbolizing her cruelty, in turns highlights her lifelessness—a stagnant artwork to be gazed upon.

    Petrarch's laurel, contrary to Augustine's fig tree, is a self-referential or auto-reflexive sign leading back to itself, that is to say, it does not refer to any higher ontology such as God or moral principles, but only to its own existence:

    The fig tree was already a scriptural emblem of conversion before Augustine used the image in his Confessions to represent the manifestation of the pattern of universal history in his own life.Petrarch's laurel, on the other hand, has no such moral dimension of meaning.It stands for a poetry whose real subject matter is its own act and whose creation is its own author.

    The fig tree of Augustine, on the other hand, is an allegory that eventually points to God:his conversion has made it a symbol of God's Grace.If the signifiers stop referring, they stop functioning as metaphors for the signified—Laura.At this very moment, these signifiers are created to substitute and to engulf her.The self-reference signifiers produce an enclosed space in which the presence could be counterfeited to make possible the infinite substitution.Here Deleuze's explanation why Kafka is able to create such a weird world seems to hit the point:in his literary dimension, it is “not dog like man, but as man, becoming man.”Following this logic, such gold, diamonds and pearls are not “l(fā)ike” Laura, but they “are” Laura, or are becoming Laura.

    Laura, lacking the ability to speak for herself, is vulnerable to the invasion of verbal violence.Beautiful as she is, she has no “autonomy”—the self.Even the decoration of her body, instead of the person herself, is equal to

    presence

    that can arouse Petrarch's sexual imagination:“ch' a me la pastorella alpestra et cruda/ posta a bagnar

    un leggiadretto velo

    ” (

    Canzoniere

    , LII, 3-4).Though serving as the covering of her naked body, the veil is “as at times her

    only reality

    ,”because the real body of hers could never be present:the metaphor has lost effect since the poet, endeavoring to erase the distance between signifier and signified, attempts to bring out the most immediacy of his own language, to make it “transparent” like the Word.However, if Laura is actually and authentically present, the whole poetic telling will immediately be brought to death since the impulse of writing originates from the endless desire of the poet who is in constant wanting for his lover.Desire always refers to, but can never reach the absent object:it is the distant time and space between desire and the desired that keeps this intensive emotion alive.The desire will perish once the desired object is brought to be present.It is an emotion dependent on lacking.To certain degree, Laura, through the description by Petrarch's verbal endeavor, is present; however, this presence is nothing but an illusion which could only survive within the field of verbal words, resulting as an alienation of the real Laura.The tension between presence and absence reflects a universe of infinite signifiers suggested by Derrida's deconstructionism:

    it was necessary to begin thinking that there was no center, that the center could not be thought in the form of a present-being,...that it was not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of nonlocus in which infinite number of sign-substitutions came into play.

    The absence of both the center and the concrete identity is the essential precondition for the infinite sign-substitutions; in the same case, it is the lack of Laura that permits Petrarch to substitute her for so many “othernesses,” which conceals her real form and makes her into a cold “otherness.” The crying and calling of the sad poet is like an empty echo, striving to reify itself, but in the end is drown in the sea of overabundant signifiers.

    By substituting Laura with countless signifiers, Petrarch has successfully transformed Laura from a woman into a doll that is indulged in her vague image in the passage of Beauvoir mentioned above.

    Sonnets

    XLV-XLVI display Laura's enthrallment of her image in the mirror, causing the miserable exile of poet the lover.Her narcissistic love, rendering herself as the self-referential sign (“a voi stessa piacendo”

    Can

    .XLV, 11), generates an enclosed space that refuses any emotional projection from Petrarch.The poet, unable to bear Laura's self-obsession, has cursed those “murderous mirror” (“i micidiali specchi”).The metaphors of gold, pearl and flowers (l'oro, perle, fior vermigli e bianchi,

    Can

    , XLVI, 1) —the most frequently used objects in the

    Canzoniere

    —have pictured a “flower” most beautiful in the world that no grass would fit “sì bel fior sia indegan l'erba” (

    Can

    .XLV, 14).The mirror that attracts Laura puts her in a status of forgetfulness (l'eterno oblio,

    Can

    .XLVI, 13), like Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection on the water.Their common mistake is that both misinterpreted the “self” as the “otherness,” someone alienated from their “egos.” Such an alienation makes the self forget its subjectivity but regards itself as an “object.” The image in the reflection, in this way, becomes a seduction that lures the self to be lost in the maze of reification.This astonishing effect of Laura's beauty in turn robs the poet of his voice “si tacque veggendo in voi finir vostro desio” (

    Can

    .XLVI, 10).However, is it not the poet himself that reifies his lover and makes her into an object? The more he blames the mirror, the more he should blame himself by objectifying his woman.It is his male gaze that has totally alienated Laura, which makes her more focus on the “object-side” in her “self.” Or put it in another way, the poet's singing has exaggerated the “image-like” character of the woman (Laura), which leads the woman to self-indulge that ironically voids his desire.In the ekphrastic description of Laura, we can see the conflict and tension between image and voice, picture and word:while the verbal words attempt to capture Laura's beauty and make her the most splendid artwork in the world, the female enchantment in turn paralyses such a verbal “invasion” by silencing the poet-lover.Objectifying the woman requires the “frame,” and Petrarch created an extraordinary frame of flowers in

    Canzone

    CXXVI.The canzone starts with a scene that evokes an erotic scene of the naked Laura who was showering, and the sweet water gently wets her body:“Chiare fresche et dolci acque, /ove le belle membra/ pose”(

    Can.

    CXXVI, 1-3) Such an arousing scene further provokes the poet's painful signing:“date udienzia insieme/a le dolente mie parole estreme.” (ibid, 12-13).As the song goes on, readers find Laura has been placed in a space circumscribed by flowers:

    una pioggia di fior

    sovra 'l suo grembo;

    et ella si sedea

    humile in tanta gloria,

    coverta già de l' amoroso nembo.

    Qual fior cadea sul lembo,

    qual su le treccie bionde

    ,

    ch' oro forbito et perle

    eran quel dí a vederle;

    qual si posava in

    terra

    , et qual su l'

    onde

    ;qual con

    un vago errore

    girando parea dir:Qui regna Amore.(

    Can.

    CXXVI, 40-52)

    Through the meticulous and delicate description of Petrarch, we are brought to a lively experience as if Laura were indeed in front of our eyes:we see how flowers are falling upon different parts of Laura's body:on her breast, on her laps, on her hairs.Some on the ground, some on the water, while others are flowing in the air.With these flowers, the ground and the water have been connected, rendering an enclosed space in which Laura was placed.Petrarch seems to inject in these flowers of his desire to touch and to kiss Laura, and following the falling traces of the petals, our eyes are able to “touch” the parts of Laura's body.In this way, the reading experience, by turning into visual experience, finally is transformed into tactile experience—it is like our sight, following the fallen flowers, is “touching” and “feeling” Laura's rested body who is bathing in the clear, crystal water.Laura is made silent for such an eroticization—all she did was sit in the frame of flowers like a painting.We readers now are forced, as well as Laura herself, to view her in the lens of a man.Also, by depicting how beautiful Laura is, and how wonderful her naked body is, Petrarch is, in some implicit way, obsessively demonstrating the sexual body of his lover to others.Petrarch seems to have become the director, with a camera in hand, who is live showing her nudity, trying to publicize it, exaggerate it and to mythologize it.Laura, on the other hand, unable to project any objection like Daphne (who has become a silent tree), has to endure this eroticization of her own image.

    However, the beautiful illusion is soon scattered.No matter how real it seems, it is no more than a collection of signifiers that tries to compensate the vacancy of the center.Petrarch, in realizing this empty dream, has cried out:

    il divin portamento

    e 'l volto e le parole e 'l dolce riso

    m' aveano, et sí diviso

    da

    l' imagine vera

    , (

    Can.

    CXXVI, 57-60)Petrarch's scattering Laura finally lead to his own division:he was separated from the “real image” (l' imagine vera), no matter how hard the poet attempted to bring Laura to the

    presence

    .But we should not neglect one thing:even though the poet's endeavor is in vain, he is still the one who controls and directs the whole love drama.Laura is brought to stage in parts:her face, limbs, words and smile, but never in completeness.

    Petrarch's ekphrastic description of Laura is the origin of his forever thirst.According to Lacan, desire is produced by the insubstantiality of the verbal signs because no signifier can ever substitute the signified.The gap between signifier and signified can never be fulfilled.In order to compensate this emptiness brought by his imaginative masturbation, Petrarch has to keep inventing abundant figures to counterfeit the presence of his lover.However, even in this extreme situation, Petrarch refuses to give any voice to her; by making her forever silent, Petrarch has realized the possession of her, alienated as she is.

    The Smallness of Female Beauty and Emptiness of Spoken Language

    As is mentioned above, Burke's aesthetic theory on “sublimity and beauty” offers a new standpoint to look at the relationship between word and image in the lens of gender.Petrarch's Laura, obviously, belongs to the catalogue of “beauty.” Her beauty, created by the enumeration of small objects such as gold, pearls, flowers, is a counterpart to Dante's Beatrice, who serves as the medium for the mediation upon God, and who is the philosophical and theological configuration of Ethics and Love:

    Dante, who has found consolation after the death of Beatrice in

    la donna gentile

    , discovers, as he gradually penetrates the significance of

    Sapienza

    , that la donna gentile is now assuming semblances similar to those of Beatrice.She brings him to the Empyreal where he finds the deceased maiden, who is in eternity alive and the first cause of his moral redemption and intellective ascent.Where

    Convivio

    ends,

    Comedy

    begins.Dante's

    Divine Comedy

    is a poem that eventually transcends itself, striving to display the heavenly visions denied to ordinary people.On the contrary, Santagata commented that the

    Canzoniere

    is a record and the memory of the small things and trivial events in the life the young poet.According to him, Laura is, in certain way, unable to reach the highness of Dante's Beatrice.She is more related to details while Beatrice to structure and metaphysics:

    Beatrice è più strutturata e più riccamente dotata di capacità simboliche; la sua solidità di personaggio le più elevati al punto da farsi lei stessa, non solo segno del divino, ma angelo, miracolo, incarnazione della Grazia.A questa sfera Laura non può assurgere, e Petrarca lo sa bene.

    Neither is Petrarch's laurel like the fig tree of Augustine, the allegorical symbol of the saint's conversion.Therefore, Laura's beauty has nothing to do with grandness or sublimity.

    In Mitchell's analysis of Burke and Lessing, he has summarized several antithesis that can help us further to clarify the relationship between image and word from the standpoints of gender, philosophy, aesthetics and theology:

    Painting Poetry

    Space Time

    Natural signs Arbitrary (man-made) signs

    Narrow sphere Infinite range

    Imitation Expression

    Body Mind

    External Internal

    Silent Eloquent

    Beauty Sublimity

    Eye Ear

    Feminine Masculine

    Such a tablet displays clearly various relations and conflicts that are generated from the imagetext relationship.Female beauty is made contrary to the masculine sublimity, and the right to speak is given to man rather than woman.Now the interpretation of the relationship between image and text cannot be satisfied with the investigations on the relations between space and time, between the natural sign and arbitrary sign, or between body and spirit:it must be put in the field of gender in order to perceive the deconstructive power behind it.That is to say, while ekphrasis celebrates a triumph of speaking language over image, it also leads to the deconstruction of the logos-center on which the voice is based.

    The speaking voice, as well as the

    logos

    -center, is now facing challenges from the postmodern deconstruction which, in these decades, keeps casting doubts on the

    center

    .Is the speaking voice legitimate enough for a real presence of the self/the author? Should the “his”story dominate over and make silent the “her”story? By revealing the illusion of priority given to the spoken language (the voice) originated from the Platonic tradition, Derrida has shown that the spoken language cannot be the equivalence of the presence:

    En effet quand j'écoute autrui , son vécu ne m'est pas présent ?en personne?, originairement.

    Je peux avoir, pense Husserl, une intuition originaire , c'est-à-dire une perception immediate de ce qui en lui est exposé dans le monde, de la visibilité de son corps, de ses gestes, de ce qui se laisse entendre des sons qu'il profère, mais la face subjective de son expérience, sa conscience, lès actes par lesquels en particulier il donne sens à ses signes,

    ne me sont pas immédiatement et originairement présents

    comme ils le sont pour lui et comme lès miens le sont pour moi.(the italic is mine)It is just like watching a far-away star:when the

    image

    of a star has travelled thousands of light years between an unknown galaxy and earth to reach the eyes, the star itself might have already terminated its life.But to the one who is watching it, it is still alive.This is the same illusion of presence produced by the spoken language.The voice of man, upon reaching an audience, has already lost its intuitional immediacy that guarantees its full presence due to the distortion of time and the attrition of historical narrative:

    c'est dire que le langage qui parlé en présence de son objet efface ou laisse fonder son originalité proper, cette structure qui n'appartient qu'à lui et qui lui permet de fonctionner tout seul, quand son intention est sevrée d'intuition.

    All that is left are only traces, signs and coded information.Therefore, the authentic presence is not a natural product of the spoken language; rather, it is invented by the

    logos

    -center which intends to suppress and to make marginal the silence.

    Actually, the precondition of narration is the absence of narrated objects.It is not hard to understand:if the thing itself is present, there is no need to narrate or to describe it.Narration means something missing and it also becomes a trace that signifies such a missing.Hence, the existence of Petrarch's ekphrasis is made possible by Laura's silence, not the way around.Silence is like a frame that characterizes the voice, without which there is no way to make any distinction:

    Parerga

    have a thickness, a surface which separates them not only, as Kant would have it, from the body of the

    ergon

    itself, but also from the outside, from the wall on which the painting is hung, the space in which the statue or column stands, as well as from the entire historic, economic, and political field of inscription in which the drive of the signature arises.

    The suppressed margin/woman/silence is actually proved to be essential to the center/man/voice, because without the former, the latter cannot survive alone.

    Language, being the sign itself, is insubstantial to replace the “thing.” The emptiness of language has drawn Petrarch to realize the vanity of his poetic project, the inutility in his desire to capture Laura, and most importantly, the hollowness in making himself “immune” from the transformation of time and space through the ekphrastic creation of a muted woman.Petrarch's satisfaction from his self-referential “sign” turns out to be “un sogno breve” (a short dream).On the one hand, the voice that depicts Laura has recreated her as an alienation by making her into an idol; On the other hand, in seeing his poetic result, Petrarch is frustrated by his never-fulfilled desire.The

    Canzoniere

    , witnessing the silence of Laura, is entirely and exclusively a songbook of Petrarch's voice, a proof of his desire to transcend the limitation of poetic language and a manifest of his masculine violence underneath of such a heartbreaking love story.However, Petrarch may not realize that his proliferation of metaphors of Laura is generally deconstructing the

    logos

    centered universe that sustains and powers his poetic “voice.” The ekphrasis of Laura is at once a celebration and an elegy of Petrarch's poetics.

    參考文獻Bibliography

    Beauvoir, Simone de.

    The Second Sex

    .Translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier.New York:Vintage Books, 2011.Culler, Jonathan.

    On Deconstruction:Theory and Criticism after Structuralism

    .Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 2014.Derrida, Jacques.

    Writing and Difference

    .Translated by Alan Bass.London and New York:Routledge, 1978.——

    .La voix et le phénomène

    ,

    introduction au problème du signe dans la phénoménologie de Hussel

    .Paris:Presses universitaire de France, 1968; Paris:Epimethée, 1993.——

    .

    “The Paeregon.” Translated by Craig Owens.

    October

    9 (Summer, 1979):3-41.Freccero, John.“The Fig Tree and the Laurel:Petrarch's Poetics.”

    Diacritics

    5, no.1 (1975):34-40.Freud, Sigmund.“Fetishism” (1927).In

    The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud

    .Translated by James Strachey.London:Hogarth, 1961.Hagstrum, Jean.

    The Sister Arts:The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray

    .Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1958.Heffernan, James A.W.

    Museum of Words:The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery

    .Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2004.Krieger, Murray.

    Ekphrasis:The Illusion of the Natural Sign

    .Baltimore:The John Hopkins University Press, 1992.Mitchell, J.T.W.

    Iconology:Image, Text, Ideology

    .Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1968.Petrarca, Francesco.

    Canzoniere, a cura di Marco Santagata

    .Milán:Mondadori, 2004.Santagata, Marco.

    I

    '

    frammenti dell

    '

    anima:storia e racconto nel Canzoniere di Petrarca

    .Bologna:Il mulino, 2011.

    久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久中文看片网| 成人国产综合亚洲| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 中国美女看黄片| 禁无遮挡网站| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 亚洲国产色片| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 中文字幕高清在线视频| netflix在线观看网站| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 日韩欧美三级三区| 永久网站在线| 永久网站在线| av在线观看视频网站免费| 免费av不卡在线播放| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 久久热精品热| 色哟哟·www| 国产精华一区二区三区| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 全区人妻精品视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| av在线老鸭窝| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 亚洲18禁久久av| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 99热精品在线国产| 久久热精品热| 我要搜黄色片| 国产单亲对白刺激| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 国产三级黄色录像| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 色5月婷婷丁香| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 在线看三级毛片| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 极品教师在线免费播放| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 久久九九热精品免费| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 久久久精品大字幕| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 日韩欧美三级三区| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 国产探花极品一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 欧美成人a在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 老女人水多毛片| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图 | 亚洲不卡免费看| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 男人舔奶头视频| 免费大片18禁| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 免费搜索国产男女视频| av黄色大香蕉| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| eeuss影院久久| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| av在线天堂中文字幕| 色播亚洲综合网| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 日本三级黄在线观看| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 久久久国产成人免费| 久99久视频精品免费| 色av中文字幕| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 国产精品久久视频播放| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 黄色配什么色好看| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 1000部很黄的大片| 国产高清激情床上av| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| av天堂中文字幕网| 99热只有精品国产| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 欧美午夜高清在线| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 在线观看66精品国产| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 午夜福利高清视频| 免费大片18禁| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 国产不卡一卡二| 欧美激情在线99| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 91av网一区二区| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 老司机福利观看| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 一本久久中文字幕| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 亚洲av成人av| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 丁香六月欧美| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 色综合婷婷激情| eeuss影院久久| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区 | 一进一出抽搐动态| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 精品国产亚洲在线| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 两个人的视频大全免费| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 看黄色毛片网站| 久久这里只有精品中国| 久久久国产成人免费| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 88av欧美| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 91久久精品电影网| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 午夜影院日韩av| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 精品久久久久久久久av| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| ponron亚洲| 我要搜黄色片| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 精品人妻1区二区| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| bbb黄色大片| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| www.色视频.com| 三级毛片av免费| av天堂中文字幕网| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| avwww免费| 99热6这里只有精品| 在线a可以看的网站| av在线天堂中文字幕| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 一级黄片播放器| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 欧美日本视频| 国产成人福利小说| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 日本a在线网址| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 欧美激情在线99| 欧美潮喷喷水| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 极品教师在线视频| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 国产三级中文精品| 日本a在线网址| 老女人水多毛片| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 两个人的视频大全免费| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| av黄色大香蕉| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 51国产日韩欧美| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 欧美成人a在线观看| 国产免费男女视频| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产精品永久免费网站| 成人三级黄色视频| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 黄色配什么色好看| 一夜夜www| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国产精品三级大全| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 成人av在线播放网站| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 国产精品三级大全| 窝窝影院91人妻| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产日本99.免费观看| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| av在线老鸭窝| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 天堂√8在线中文| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 久久中文看片网| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 亚洲av二区三区四区| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 色5月婷婷丁香| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 免费av观看视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 综合色av麻豆| 18+在线观看网站| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 国产精品,欧美在线| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 级片在线观看| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产高清三级在线| 宅男免费午夜| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 久久国产精品影院| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 搞女人的毛片| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 免费看光身美女| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 午夜福利在线在线| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 一本精品99久久精品77| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产老妇女一区| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 99热精品在线国产| 黄片小视频在线播放| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 国产三级在线视频| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 搡老岳熟女国产| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲18禁久久av| av专区在线播放| a级毛片a级免费在线| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 亚洲色图av天堂| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 欧美日韩黄片免| 国产美女午夜福利| 91av网一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 黄片小视频在线播放| 欧美潮喷喷水| 我要搜黄色片| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 日本一二三区视频观看| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 午夜福利欧美成人| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 精品久久久久久久久av| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产美女午夜福利| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 宅男免费午夜| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 久久久国产成人免费| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 日韩欧美三级三区| 在线国产一区二区在线| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 少妇高潮的动态图| 久久久色成人| 免费高清视频大片| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| av福利片在线观看| 久99久视频精品免费| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 亚洲18禁久久av| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 舔av片在线| 亚洲色图av天堂| 久久久色成人| 精品久久久久久,| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 欧美色视频一区免费| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 欧美乱妇无乱码| 午夜福利在线在线| 日本在线视频免费播放| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 午夜精品在线福利| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 国产在视频线在精品| 国产三级黄色录像| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 精品久久久久久成人av| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| a在线观看视频网站| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 天堂√8在线中文| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 久久久久九九精品影院| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 午夜两性在线视频| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产精品三级大全| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 日本 av在线| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 亚洲av成人av| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 中文字幕久久专区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| av中文乱码字幕在线| 日本三级黄在线观看| 久久久久久大精品| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 一级黄片播放器| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 亚洲无线观看免费| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产不卡一卡二| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 全区人妻精品视频| 99久国产av精品| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 热99re8久久精品国产| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 1024手机看黄色片| 亚洲片人在线观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕 | 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 97超视频在线观看视频| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 精品国产三级普通话版| 18+在线观看网站| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| av在线天堂中文字幕| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产老妇女一区| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 极品教师在线视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 永久网站在线| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 级片在线观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 91字幕亚洲| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 夜夜爽天天搞| 色在线成人网| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 精品国产亚洲在线| 两人在一起打扑克的视频|