8/10/2019 Copy From e Book

1/2

In this essay, derrida establishes that a text like mallarm's Mimique deconstructs the platonic

values of truth and reference of mimesis as subject to these values If mimique does not simplyinvert the platonic hierarchy bet!een the ori"inal and the copy, mimetic art and the discourse of

truth, but undertakes a "enuine deconstruction of these values as !ell as the very idea of hierarhy, it

is not because mimique !ould be characteri#ed by !hat has been called literariness since the$ussian formalists, but because it is a text in a very particular !ay In !hat follo!s, I !ill try to

determine as precisely as possible this particular notion of textuality%!hat I !ill from no! on callthe textual instance &ccordin" to derrida, the subjection of mimesis to a hori#on of truth is radically

displaced at the moment !hen !ritin" marks and doubles in a certain syntactical operation the

marks of the text by means of an undecidable trait his double mark escapes the pertinence orauthority of truth( it does not overturn it but rather inscribes it !ithin its play as one of its functions

or parts In the context of the double session, the textual mark is determined as a double mark orre)mark *ut !hat is a re)mark+

*ecause mimique does not abolish the differential structure of mimesis in spite of its

deconstruction of the platonic distinctions, it is a simulacrum of platonism Mimique achievessuch a simulacrum not only by means of an extraordinary formal and syntactical tour de forcebut

by thematic means as !ell he event narrated by the mime of mimique is a hymen, the marria"e

of ierrot and -olumbine his marria"e culminates in ierrot's assassination of his !ife by ticklin"her to death .that is to say, by means of a perfect crime, !hich leaves no traces/ and in ierrot's

death in front of the lau"hin" portrait of his victim .a death that !ill not sho! any traces either/he t!o deaths, resultin" from an or"astic spasm, represent ierrot and -olumbine's consummation

of their marria"e he mimin" of this event in !hich nothin" has taken place exhibits the textualstructure of mallarm's mimique &s 0errida states, It is a dramati#ation !hich illustrates

nothin", !hich illustrates the nothin", li"hts up a space, re)marks a spacin" as a nothin", a blank(

!hite as a yet un!ritten pa"e, blank as a diffference bet!een t!o lines .p123/ 4et thisdramati#ation is nothin" but a sta"in" of the theatrical space itself 5hat remains !hen the sta"e

comes to double the sta"e, !hen the mimed hymen is nothin" but an illustration of the theatricalspace itself, that is, a mimin" of mimin", !ithout referent, a mimin" that mimes only reference, is

!hat mallarm calls 'the pure medium, of fiction, a perpetual allusion without breaking the

mirror .pp162)166/& hymen, at first, names the fusion of t!o durin" the consummation of marria"e It si"nifies

the abolition of difference bet!een desire and satisfaction Moreover, it leads to the suppression ofthe difference bet!een ima"e and thin", empty si"nifier and the si"nified, imitation and the

imitated It leads to a complete confusion of exteriority and interiority he hymen in mallarm's

!ritin" produces, accordin" to derrida, the effect of a mediumIt is an operation that bothso!sconfusion betweenopposites andstands betweenthe opposites 'at once' !hat counts here is the

between, the in)bet!een)ness of the hymen .p161/*ut second, for mallarm, the hymen, the consummation of differends, the continuity and

confusion of the coitus, mer"es !ith !hat it seems to be derived from( the hymen as protectivescreen, the je!el box of vir"inity, the va"inal partition, the fine, invisible veil !hich, in front of thehystera, stands betweenthe inside and the outside of the !oman, and consequently bet!een desire

and fulfillment .pp161)67/ 0errida can thus conclude that !ith all the undecidability of itsmeanin", the hymen only takes place !hen it doesn't take place, !hen nothin" really happens, !hen

there is an all)consumin" consummation !ithout violence, or a violence !ithout blo!s, or a blo!

!ithout marks, a mark !ithout a mark .a mar"in/, etc, !hen the veil is, !ithout bein", torn, forexample !hen one is made to die or come lau"hin" .p167/ he manner in !hich the double

structure of the hymen relates to itself is that of a reflection !ithout penetration( the entreof thehymen is reflected in the screen !ithout penetratin" it .p168/ his reflection !ithout penetration,

this doublin" !ithout overlayin" or overlappin" of the hymen, this is !hat constitutes, as the

fictional milieu of mallarm's mimique the textual mark as a remarkIf the mime of mimique only imitates imitation, if he copies only copyin", all he produces

is a copy of a copy In the same manner, the hymen that comes to illustrate the theatrical space

8/10/2019 Copy From e Book

2/2

reduplicates nothin" but the mimin" of the mime Mimin" only reference, but not a particular

referent, mallarm keeps the platonic differential structure of mimesis intact !hile radicallydisplacin" it Instead of imitatin", of referrin" to a referent !ithin the hori#on of truth, the mime

mimes only other si"ns and their referrin" function 9i"ns in the text of mimique are made to

refer to !hat accordin" to metaphysics is only derived, unreal, unpresent, that is, to other si"ns9uch a doublin" of the si"n, of a si"n referrin" to another si"n and to its function of referrin", is

!hat derrida calls re)markin"& copy of a copy, a simulacrum that simulates the latonic simulacrum%the platonic copy

of a copyhave all lost here the lure of the present referent and thus find themselves lost for

dialectics and ontolo"y, lost for absolute kno!led"e .p16:/ his double si"n, a si"n referrin" toanother si"n, reflectin" itself in it !ithout penetratin" it and !ithout overlayin" it, is thetextual

instance he operation and re)markin" that constitutes it is an operation by !hich !hattraditionally !as conceived of as a mark for a present referent becomes duplicated and refers ot to

itself but to somethin" similar to it, another mark his re)markin" of the platonic simulacrum%a

scandal in the hori#on of truth%"ives rise to a tertium quid ertium datur, !ithout synthesis,!rites derrida

he textual instance as illustrated by the hymen as a re)mark, as a reflection !ithout

penetration, as a duplication !ithout identity, escapes and precedes all ontolo"y of the text &llontolo"ies of the text, !hether they determine text in terms of the sensible, the intelli"ible, or

dialectically as form, remain !ithin the hori#on of metaphysics and its platonic notion of a mimesissubject to truth he textual instance, on the contrary, as a mimesis of mimesis, as a hymen bet!een

mimesis and mimesis, appears as no lon"er contained in the process of truth Instead, it is thehori#on of truth that is inscribed in textual mimesis ;nly an act of violence, either arbitrary or

conventional, can make the textual mark si"nify a referent