Much analysis has become standard lore by scholars of Rimbaud's works, especially regarding his prose poem, The Foolish Virgin, where a consensus has been reached, catagorically asserting that the voice of the aforementioned is undoubtedly given to be that of Verlaine, whilst the voice of the 'Infernal Bridegroom' is designated to be that of Rimbaud, but it is not a mystery of any sort to observe that such critics and commentators have never interpreted the works of Arthur Rimbaud on his own particular terms. Was it not one of Rimbaud's very first statements on poetics, in his Letters of the Prophet, that I is an other? — does such a statement not entail that not one of the myriad speakers in Rimbaud's poems is ever in the voice of Rimbaud?
Does he not elaborate further to his friend, Ernest Delahaye, against egotism — against subjectivity, against autobiographical writings? Does he not chide his former professor, Georges Izambard, for being a historical repetition of that very same, and very stale and human point of view that has been the cause of ennui in the French landscape of poetry for centuries? Does he not imply that poetry is not an everyday use of language, that each book of poems, if they are indeed to actually be poems, are a catalogue of objectives, of prophecies, of magical spells — that channelling the spirits, — one's own archetypes and that of others, — by writing with I is an other in mind, is exactly what in fact distinguishes the sacredness of poetry from the profanity of prose?
Could it be that neither of the speakers in The Foolish Virgin are that of Rimbaud? Or are we to interpret what he wrote not on his own terms, and be forced to falsely concede and warp his own beliefs as they apply to his own writings, by imposing a misoneism, — that what he wrote is nothing other than autobiographical? Or are we to say that his writings are autobiographical, and then be forced by the facts of Rimbaud's Letter to Paul Demeny, that according to his own definition of poetry, what he wrote was therefore not poetry, but prose?
And if neither of those two instances is the case, then are we left to concede that if the speakers in that prose poem of his are not himself and Verlaine, then are they none other than that of Verlaine, and of Verlaine's then wife, Mathilde? Of course we can, but we would be doing no better than to say that characters of The Foolish Virgin are the former, for to apply biography to fictional data is also ridiculously absurd. What a lack of freedom such a scriptwriter would have, how limited, were they only able to write from a human point of view, how obvious it would be that their work suffers as a result, and that such a writer is not as literate as the blank page requires them to be.
But if not Rimbaud, or Verlaine, then who is it that speaks in each of his poems? From whose heart and mind did Rimbaud express the poetic depths of in the pages of his Illuminations? Are we to say that such words that he wrote were all autobiographical? Or even biographical? Again, we would not be interpreting the poet on his own terms if we did.
And through it all, biographers of Rimbaud have recorded that at least a large portion of the Illuminations were written when he was in the company of Germain Nouveau, that same person who wrote to Rimbaud in Aden, two years after Rimbaud's death of which he was not informed, that he would like to join him in the hot climate, away from Europe, in unexplored Africa. Could it be that the speaker in many of Rimbauds Illuminations is none other than Germain Nouveau? What a far fetched interpretation, a chorus of quibblers might say, of course Rimbaud's poems are about himself, and maybe possibly about Verlaine, and nobody else, but about nobody in particular is exactly where interpreting Rimbaud's work on his own terms leads one to.
So if not Rimbaud, if not Verlaine, if not Nouveau, then who? Who is the speaker in Rimbaud's poetical works? For anybody that has ever been audience to a really exceptional music band in a crowded sports arena, it is not uncommon for them to say that when they were there, they felt as if something magical happened, and the lead singer was specifically singing to them.
Objectively, of course, they were not, but subjectively, it seemed as if that were the case, that every word that that lead singer sang somehow related to that audience member's life directly, and far more than it did to any of the other audience members there.
But in truth, the songs the musician was singing was in no way personally about that person in that audience whom that singer had never met before. Is that audience member insane?
Yet it has been one of the great literary errors of the 20th century for biographers of Rimbaud to say the same thing as that possibly insane audience member, but in reverse, — that in regards to the example provided above, such scholars would argue that that song was not about that audience member in particular, even though that audience member reported having definitely felt as if that song was specifically about them, and nobody else. No, they would argue that that song was about that lead singer in particular, and nobody else, that it was autobiographical.
But such a statement is equally absurd!
To say that all of Rimbaud's poems are about Rimbaud (and the songs of the aforementioned singer are about them and them only), is historically incorrect. Such poems are as much about Rimbaud as they are about any random person other than Rimbaud. Objectively, they are about no one person in particular, and it is only when viewed subjectively, that his poetical works can be assumed that they are about any person in particular, including Rimbaud. All truly poetic works have a mysterious magic mirror effect to them, where that which is read is able to be interpreted in a new and different fashion each time it is read, even if that poem is read over and over again by the very same person. It is of the utmost absurdity and a complete lack of professionalism for a biographer to pinpoint one imaginary instant in time by idolizing one interpretation of a poem over another.
Therefore, a disclaimer must be provided to each of those biographies. It must be said, that due to the power of art as described in the musician/audience member example provided above, that Rimbaud's poems are as autobiographical of Rimbaud only inasmuch as the poems of Baudelaire, whom never met Rimbaud, are biographical of Rimbaud, which is to say, that no really powerful poem is biographical of Rimbaud, whether written by Rimbaud, Baudelaire, or anybody else, at all.
A place for admirers of Arthur Rimbaud's poems
to post their reviews, critiques, and commentaries.
(Please note: best viewed with Internet Explorer)
