In “My heart laid bare” Baudelaire writes about the “Universal Religion” devised for “the alchemists of thought,” “a religion that comes from man, considered as a divine memento.” The idea, as we read in the text, was inspired by the writings of Chateaubriand, De Maistre and those of the “Alexandrians”. And indeed, the two former authors wrote explicitly about a „universal tradition” that finds its fulfillment in the Catholic religion. It does not matter if we recognize the “Alexandrians” as representatives of the Neoplatonic school, the Alexandrian Fathers of Church, or disciples of Hermetism, the very term implies a tradition of both syncretic and mystic character that resembles gnosis. Baudelaire’s “Universal Religion,” despite his Catholic convictions, cannot be associated with Catholicism. Based on a universal transmission of myths and symbols, it rather refers to eternal truths about man as well as to the divine source of all beings – also in the modern world, which puts God’s existence in doubt.
The study is devoted to personological analysis of the one-hundred-poem collection entitled Vade-mecum by Cyprian Norwid in the light of advanced and, above all, multidimensional research on the personology of the subject of creative activities of Emily Dickinson’s poems. Based to a large extent on Robert Weisbuch’s complex terminology from the canonical volume Emily Dickinson’s Poetry, using his typology of lyrical personas, the researcher on Norwid gains important, additional comparative literature tool allowing, e.g. the juxtaposition alongside each other of the types of poetry written by Norwid, Dickinson and Baudelaire (Norwid’s and Dickinson’s lyrical persona is – it seems – a mixture of a “wounded dialectician” and “engaging sufferer”, Baudelaire’s persona is, in turn, the marriage of features of an “engaging sufferer” and “withdrawn bard”). This is how the premodernist “theatre of personas” is created, the stronger that – which I am trying to emphasize in this text – despite appearances, it is possible to find similarities in the poetic language between the works of Norwid and Dickinson. In the same way, Norwid and Dickinson – in order to build their lyric – use a poetic function in the Jakobsonian sense: on the one hand, they strengthen and intensify its impact, on the other hand, they use it to “cover up” the phenomenon of linguistic disintegration of the world for which Modernist lyric poetry served in a special way as a detector, a kind of litmus paper.
In a period of global pandemic and confinement to our homes, the end of art is not only a philosophical hypothesis, it is a fact of society. We have experienced that modern societies, those that were able to make art an absolute at one point in their history, no longer need the arts, or the physical presence of artists and spectators, or have considered them inessential, and therefore contingent. Is this what G. W. F. Hegel prophesied with his thesis of the end of art? In this paper I aim to clarify this by referring to the sources of Hegel’s lectures and by examining the reception by nineteenth-century French writers. 1) First, I give a reminder of the different ways in which Hegel’s theme of the end of art can be interpreted. 2) Then, I give a second reminder concerning the reception of Hegel’s Aesthetics in France, with a focus on the translations. 3) Finally, I propose to study three writers who determine three ways of conceiving the appropriation of Hegel in the 19th century and of the theme of the end of art: Théophile Gautier, Charles Baudelaire and Gustave Flaubert.
Norwid and Baudelaire, born in the same year (1821), unconsciously put themselves in a specific position which Paul Valéry described as a ‘situation’. Its fundamental basis is poets’ determination to define themselves against their great Romantic predecessors, stand out and finally, to release themselves from the constraints of the Romantic influence. The position the two poets find themselves in defines their attitude to Romanticism which is based on carrying on and breaking up with the Romantic tradition and this, on the other hand, makes a time mark even more difficult to establish. Their position is presented in the context of contemporary categories such as Romanticism, 19th-century culture model, generation, modernity, and crisis. Such perspective makes it possible to recognise a shared sense of unity in Norwid and Baudelaire’s literary outputs as well as in their reception styles despite the fact the poets are essentially beyond any comparison.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy szczególnego położenia wspólnego Norwidowi i Baudelaire’owi urodzonym w tym samym 1821 r., które Paul Valéry określił mianem „sytuacji”. Jej podstawą jest konieczność określenia się wobec wielkich poprzedników − romantycznych wieszczów, odróżnienia się, walki z wpływem. Pozycja obu poetów, która określa ich stosunek do romantyzmu oparty na kontynuacji i zerwaniu (co utrudnia ustanowienie cezury), ukazana jest w kontekście współcześnie rozumianych kategorii takich jak romantyzm, dziewiętnastowieczność, pokolenie, nowoczesność czy kryzys. Taka perspektywa pozwala dostrzec wspólnotę twórczości i recepcji pisarzy zasadniczo nieporównywalnych.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.