Collected Poetical Works of Charles Baudelaire

by Charles Baudelaire

  In spite of the cry against Flowers of Evil, Baudelaire did not lack defenders among literary men themselves; and many enthusiastic articles were written in praise of his book. Thierry not unjustly compared him to Dante, to which Barbey d’Aurevilly replied, “Baudelaire comes from hell, Dante only went there”; adding at the finish of his article: “After the Flowers of Evil there are only two possible ways for the poet who made them blossom: either to blow out his brains or become a Christian.” Baudelaire did neither. And Victor Hugo, after reading the two poems, “The Seven Old Men” and “The Little Old Women,” wrote to Baudelaire. “You have dowered the heaven of art with one knows not what deathly gleam,” he said in his letter; “you have created a new shudder.” The phrase became famous, and for many years after this the creation of a new shudder was the ambition of every young French writer worth his salt.

  When the first great wave of public astonishment had broken and ebbed, Baudelaire’s work began to be appreciated by others than merely literary men, by all in fact who cared for careful art and subtle thinking, and before long he was admitted to be the greatest after Hugo who had written French verse. He was famous and he was unhappy. Neither glory, nor love, nor friendship — and he knew them all — could minister to the disease of that fierce mind, seeking it knew not what and never finding it; seeking it, unhappily, in the strangest excesses. He took opium to quieten his nerves when they trembled, for something to do when they did not, and made immoderate use of hashish to produce visions and heighten his phantasy. His life was a haunted weariness. Thomas de Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium-Eater seems to have fascinated him to a great extent, for besides imitating the vices of the author, he wrote, in imitation of his book, The Artificial Paradises, a monograph on the effects of opium and hashish, partly original, partly a mere translation from the Confessions.

  He remembered his visions and sensations as an eater of drugs and made literary use of them. At the end of this book, among the “Poems in Prose,” will be found one entitled “The Double Chamber,” almost certainly written under the influence of opium, and the last verse of “The Temptation” —

  “O mystic metamorphosis!

  My senses into one sense flow —

  Her voice makes perfume when she speaks,

  Her breath is music faint and low!”

  as well as the last six lines of that profound sonnet “Correspondences” —

  “Some perfumes are as fragrant as a child,

  Sweet as the sound of hautboys, meadow-green;

  Others, corrupted, rich, exultant, wild,

  Have all the expansion of things infinite:

  As amber, incense, musk, and benzoin,

  Which sing the sense’s and the soul’s delight,”

  are certainly memories of a sensation he experienced under the influence of hashish, as recorded in The Artificial Paradises, where he has this curious passage:— “The senses become extraordinarily acute and fine. The eyes pierce Infinity. The ear seizes the most unseizable sounds in the midst of the shrillest noises. Hallucinations commence.... External objects take on monstrous appearances and show themselves under forms hitherto unknown.... The most singular equivocations, the most inexplicable transposition of ideas, take place. Sounds are perceived to have a colour, and colour becomes musical.” Baudelaire need not have gone to hashish to discover this. The mystics of all times have taught that sounds in gross matter produce colour in subtle matter; and all who are subject to any visionary condition know that when in trance colours will produce words of a language whose meaning is forgotten as soon as one awakes to normal life; but I do not think Baudelaire was a visionary. His work shows too precise a method, and a too ordered appreciation of the artificial in beauty. There again he is comparable to Aubrey Beardsley, for I have read somewhere that when Beardsley was asked if ever he saw visions, he replied, “I do not permit myself to see them, except upon paper.” The whole question of the colour of sound is one of supreme interest to the poet, but it is too difficult and abstract a question to be written of here. A famous sonnet by Rimbaud on the colour of the vowels has founded a school of symbolists in France. I will content myself with quoting that — in the original, since it loses too much, by translation:

  “A noir, E blanc, I rouge, U vert, O bleu, voyelles,

  Je dirai quelque jour vos naissances latentes,

  A, noir corset velu des mouches éclatantes

  Qui bourdonnent autour des puanteurs cruelles,

  Golfes d’ombres; E, candeurs des vapeurs et des tentes,

  Lances des glaciers fiers, rois blancs, frissons d’ombrelles;

  I, pourpres, sang craché, rire des lèvres belles

  Dans la colère ou les ivresses pénitentes;

  U, cycles, vibrements divins des mers virides,

  Paix des pâtis semés d’animaux, paix des rides

  Que l’alchimie imprime aux grands fronts studieux.

  O, suprême clairon, plein de strideurs étranges,

  Silences traversés des mondes et des anges.

  — O l’Oméga, rayon violet de ses yeux.”

  It is to be hoped that opium and hashish rendered Baudelaire somewhat less unhappy during his life, for they certainly contributed to hasten his death. Always of an extremely neurotic temperament, he began to break down beneath his excesses, and shortly after the publication of The Artificial Paradises, which shows a considerable deterioration in his style, he removed from Paris to Brussels in the hope of building up his health by the change. At Brussels he grew worse. His speech began to fail; he was unable to pronounce certain words and stumbled over others. Hallucinations commenced, no longer the hallucinations of hashish; and his disease, rapidly establishing itself, was recognised as “general paralysis of the insane.” Gautier tells how the news of his death came to Paris while he yet lived. It was false news, but prematurely true. Baudelaire lingered on for another three months; motionless and inert, his eyes the only part of him alive; unable to speak or even to write, and so died.

  He left, besides The Flowers of Evil and Little Poems in Prose (his masterpieces), several volumes of critical essays, published under the titles of Æsthetic Curiosities and Romantic Art; The Artificial Paradises, and his translations of the works of Edgar Allan Poe — admirable pieces of work by which Poe actually gains.

  III

  Baudelaire’s love of the artificial has been insisted upon by all who have studied his work, but to my mind never sufficiently insisted upon, for it was the foundation of his method. He wrote many arguments in favour of the artificial, and elaborated them into a kind of paradoxical philosophy of art. His hatred of nature and purely natural things was but a perverted form of the religious ecstasy that made the old monk pull his cowl about his eyes when he left his cell in the month of May, lest he should see the blossoming trees, and his mind be turned towards the beautiful delusions of the world. The Egyptians and the earliest of the Christians looked upon nature not as the work of the good and benevolent spirit who is the father of our souls, but as the work of the rebellious “gods of generation,” who fashion beautiful things to capture the heart of man and bind his Soul to earth. Blake, whom I have already quoted, hated nature in the same fashion, and held death to be the one way of escape from “the delusions of goddess Nature and her laws.” Baudelaire’s revolt against external things was more a revolt of the intellect than of the imagination; and he expresses it, not by desiring that the things of nature should be swept away to make room for the things of the spirit, but that they should be so changed by art that they cease to be natural. As he was of all poets the most intensely modern, holding that “modernity is one-half of art,” the other half being something “eternal and immutable,” he preferred, unlike Blake and his modern followers, to express himself in quite modern terms, and so wrote his famous and much misunderstood Éloge du Maquillage to defend his views. As was usual with him, he pushed his ideas to their extreme logical sequence, and the casual reader who picks up that extrao
rdinary essay is in consequence quite misled as to the writer’s intention.

  It seems scarcely necessary at this time of day to assert that the Éloge du Maquillage is something more than a mere Praise of Cosmetics, written by a man who wished to shock his readers. It is the part expression of a theory of art, and if it is paradoxical and far-fetched it is because Baudelaire wrote at a time when French literature, in the words of M. Asselineau, “was dying of correctness,” and needed very vigorous treatment indeed. If the Éloge du Maquillage had been more restrained in manner, if it had not been something so entirely contrary to all accepted ideas of the well-regulated citizen who never thinks a thought that somebody else has not put into his head, it might have been passed over without notice. It was written to initiate the profane; to make them think, at least; and not to raise a smile among the initiated. And moreover, it was in a manner a defence of his own work that had met with so much hatred and opposition.

  He begins by attempting to prove that Nature is innately and fundamentally wrong and wicked. “The greater number of errors relative to the beautiful date from the eighteenth century’s false conceptions of morality. Nature was regarded in those times as the base, source, and type of all possible good and beauty.... If, however, we consent to refer simply to the visible facts,... we see that Nature teaches nothing, or almost nothing. That is to say, she forces man to sleep, to drink, to eat, and to protect himself, well or ill, against the hostilities of the atmosphere. It is she also who moves him to kill and eat or imprison and torture his kind; for, as soon as we leave the region of necessities and needs to enter into that of luxuries and pleasures, we see that Nature is no better than a counsellor to crime.... Religion commands us to nourish our poor and infirm parents; Nature (the voice of our own interest) commands us to do away with them. Pass in review, analyse all that is natural, all the actions and desires of the natural man, and you will find nothing but what is horrible. All beautiful and noble things are the result of calculation. Crime, the taste for which the human animal absorbs before birth, is originally natural. Virtue, on the contrary, is artificial, supernatural, since there has been a necessity in all ages and among all nations for gods and prophets to preach virtue to humanity; since man alone would have been unable to discover it. Evil is done without effort, naturally and by fatality; good is always the product of an art.”

  So far the argument is straightforward and expresses what many must have thought, but Baudelaire, remembering that exaggeration is the best way of impressing one’s ideas upon the unimaginative, immediately carries his argument from the moral order to the order of the beautiful, and applies it there. The result is strange enough. “I am thus led to regard personal adornment as one of the signs of the primitive nobility of the human soul. The races that our confused and perverted civilisation, with a fatuity and pride entirely laughable, treats as savages, understand as does the child the high spirituality of the toilet. The savage and the child, by their naïve love of all brilliant things, of glittering plumage and shining stuffs, and the superlative majesty of artificial forms, bear witness to their distaste for reality, and so prove, unknown to themselves, the immateriality of their souls.”

  Thus, with some appearance of logic, he carries his argument a step farther, and this immediately brings him to the bizarre conclusion that the more beautiful a woman naturally is, the more she should hide her natural beauty beneath the artificial charm of rouge and powder. “She performs a duty in attempting to appear magical and supernatural. She is an idol who must adorn herself to be adored.” Powder and rouge and kohl, all the little artifices that shock respectability, have for their end “the creation of an abstract unity in the grain and colour of the skin.” This unity brings the human being nearer to the condition of a statue — that is to say, “a divine and superior being.” Red and black are the symbols of “an excessive and supernatural life.” A touch of kohl “lends to the eye a more decided appearance of a window opened upon infinity”; and rouge augments the brilliance of the eye, “and adds to a beautiful feminine face the mysterious passion of the priestess.” But artifice cannot make ugliness any the less ugly, nor help age to rival youth. “Who dare assign to art the sterile function of imitating nature?” Deception, if it is to have any charm, must be obvious and unashamed; it must be displayed “if not with affectation, at least with a kind of candour.”

  Such theories as these, if they are sincerely held, necessarily lead the theorist into the strangest bypaths of literature. Baudelaire, like many another writer whose business is with verse, pondered so long upon the musical and rhythmical value of words that at times words became meaningless to him. He thought his own language too simple to express the complexities of poetic reverie, and dreamed of writing his poems in Latin. Not, however, in the Latin of classical times; that was too robust, too natural, too “brutal and purely epidermic,” to use an expression of his own; but in the corrupt Latin of the Byzantine decadence, which he considered as “the supreme sigh of a strong being already transformed and prepared for the spiritual life.”

  One of these Latin poems has appeared in all editions of The Flowers of Evil. Though dozens as good are to be found in the Breviary of the Roman Church, “Franciscæ Meæ Laudes” has been included in this selection for the benefit of those curious in such matters. It is one of Baudelaire’s many successful steps in the wrong direction.

  IV

  In almost every line of The Flowers of Evil one can trace the influence of Edgar Poe, and in the many places where Baudelaire has attained a pure imaginative beauty as in “The Sadness of the Moon” or “Music” or “The Death of Lovers,” it is a beauty that would have pleased the author of Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque. Another kind of beauty, the beauty of death — for in Baudelaire’s crucible everything is melted into loveliness — is even more directly traceable to Poe. In spite of the sonnet “Correspondences,” and in spite of his Symbolist followers of the present day, Baudelaire himself made but an imperfect use of such symbols as he had; and these he found ready to his hand in the works of the American poet. The Tomb, the symbol of death or of an intellectual darkness inhabited by the Worm, who is remorse; the Abyss, which is the despair into which the mortal part of man’s mind plunges when brought into contact with dead and perishing substances; all these are borrowed from Poe. The Worm, who “devours with a kiss,” occasionally becomes Time devouring life, or the Demon, “the obscure Enemy who gnaws the heart”; and when it is none of these it is the Serpent, as in that sombre poem “To a Madonna” — the Serpent beneath the feet of conquering purity. Baudelaire’s imagination, however, which continually ran upon macabre images, loved remorse more than peace, and loved the Serpent more than the purity that would slay it, so he destroys purity with “Seven Knives” which are “the Seven Deadly Sins,” that the Serpent may live to prey upon a heart that finds no beauty in peace. Even Love is evil, for his “ancient arrows” are “crime, horror, folly,” and the god Eros becomes a demon lying in wait:

  “Let us love gently. Love, from his retreat

  Ambushed and shadowy, bends his fatal bow,

  And I too well his ancient arrows know:

  Crime, Horror, Folly....”

  Gautier pretends that the poet preserved his ideal under the form of “the adorable phantom of La Beatrix, the ideal ever desired, never attained, the divine and superior beauty incarnated in an ethereal woman, spiritualised, made of light and flame and perfume, a vapour, a dream, a reflection of the seraphical world”; but when Baudelaire has a vision of this same Beatrice he sees her as one of a crowd of “cruel and curious demons” who mock at his sorrow, and she, too, mocks him, and caresses the demons who are his spiritual foes.

  Baudelaire was too deeply in love with the artificial to care overmuch for the symbols he could have found among natural objects. Only once in The Flowers of Evil does he look upon the Moon with the eyes of a mystic; and that is when he remembers that all people of imagination are under the Moon’s influence, a
nd makes his poet hide her iridescent tear in his heart, “far from the eyes of the Sun,” for the Sun is lord of material labours and therefore hostile to the dreams and reveries that are the activity of the poet. He sought more for bizarre analogies and striking metaphors than for true symbols or correspondences. He is happiest when comparing the vault of the heaven to “the lighted ceiling of a music hall,” or “the black lid of the mighty pot where the human generations boil”; and when he thinks of the unfortunate and unhappy folk of the world, he does not see any hope for them in any future state; he sees, simply, “God’s awful claw” stretched out to tear them. He offers pity, but no comfort.

  Sometimes he has a vision of a beauty unmingled with any malevolence; but it is always evoked by sensuous and material things; perfume or music; and always it is a sorrowful loveliness he mourns or praises. Perhaps of all his poems “The Balcony” is most full of that tender and reverential melancholy we look for in a poem of love; but even it tells of a passion that has faded out of heart and mind and become beautiful only with its passing away, and not of an existing love. The other love poems — if indeed such a name can be given to “A Madrigal of Sorrow,” “The Eyes of Beauty,” “The Remorse of the Dead,” and the like — are nothing but terrible confessions of satiety, or cruelty, or terror. I have translated “The Corpse,” his most famous and most infamous poem, partly because it shows him at his worst as the others in the volume at his best, partly because it is something of the nature of a literary curiosity. A poem like “The Corpse,” which is simply an example of what may happen if any writer pushes his theories to the extreme, does not at all detract, be it said, from Baudelaire’s delicate genius; for though he may not be quite worthy of a place by Dante, he has written poems that Dante might have been proud to write, and he is worthy to be set among the very greatest of the moderns, alongside Hugo and Verlaine. Read the sonnet entitled “Beauty” and you will see how he has invoked in fourteen lines the image of a goddess, mysterious and immortal; as fair as that Aphrodite who cast the shadow of her loveliness upon the Golden Age; as terrible as Pallas, “the warrior maid invincible.” And as Minerva loved mortality in the person of Ulysses, so Baudelaire’s personification of Beauty loves the poets who pray before her and gaze into her eternal eyes, watching the rising and setting of their visionary Star in those placid mirrors.