Rimbaud Fictions: Pierre Michon and William Marx

In Rimbaud the son (Gallimard, 1991) Pierre Michon does not pursue the traditional goal of a biographer: to reveal new facts about Arthur Rimbaud or to supplement existing studies. Rather, he delves into the personality and intimacy of the poet's writing in order to ultimately find his own literary voice. Michon navigates Rimbaud's life by using phrases such as "on dit que" (it is said that) or "on ne sait si" (it is not known whether), commenting, hesitating, dreaming, and discarding, repeatedly revisiting Rimbaud's story without providing definitive answers. Instead, he asks fundamental questions of the young poet and of himself: "qu'est-ce qui pousse un homme à écrire? À rechercher l'excellence? Qu'est-ce qui fait soudain mûrir ses vers, 'autant que s'il avait écrit d'un seul trait de plume La Légende des siècles, Les Fleurs du mal et The Divine Comedy'?".

The work is a reflection on Rimbaud's inner conflicts, his complex relationships with his parents—especially his mother Vitalie Cuif, styled as a "Carabosse," and his absent "Capitaine" father—as well as with the established literary tradition. Michon explores how these formative bonds influenced Rimbaud's poetry and how he both transcended and violently destroyed the firmly established poetic form of the alexandrine, the "tringle à douze pieds." He also illuminates the figures who crossed Rimbaud's path, including his teachers such as Georges Izambard and poets like Théodore de Banville and Paul Verlaine, who shaped his development in diverse ways and later became his interpreters themselves, often with their own conceptions of Rimbaud's character.

Theses on Michon's Rimbaud book

Michon paints a picture of Rimbaud characterized by extreme inner tension, a deep-seated "rage" ("colère") against his parents and the world, which in his poetry transforms into or blends with "charity" ("charité"). Michon describes this process as an explosive mixture that pits "infinite anger and mercy" ("la rancune infinie et la miséricorde") against each other, as if struggle and devotion were merging in a single act. Rimbaud is portrayed as a radical rebel who rejects every "master," not because he himself desires to be a master, but because his true, unattainable master is his phantom-like father, "a ghostly figure, indescribably exhaled in the ghostly trumpets of distant garrisons" ("figure fantôme ineffablement exhalée dans les clairons fantômes de garnisons lointaines"). For Michon, this Rimbaud is "the verse personified" ("le vers personnellement"), an embodiment of poetry itself, which resists any division and whose "brutal ambition" aims to absorb poetry completely. He appears as the "horrible laborer, the white blackbird" ("horrible laboureur, le merle blanc") of poetry.

This in Rimbaud the son This concept of literature views poetry as an "old matchmaker" ("vieille marieuse") who brings together seemingly incompatible elements such as "clairon" (trumpet sounds) and "patenôtres" (the Lord's Prayer), thus linking the sacred and the profane. Literature is seen as a "well without measure" ("puits sans mesure") in which everything sinks, and the poet as a "well-digger" ("puisatier") who digs deeper than all others and "without mercy excavates the well beneath them to swallow them up in it" ("creuser sans merci sous eux le puits où les engouffrer"). For Michon, poetry is a violent, existential act that provokes "convulsions" and is not satisfied with "consolations," because "poetry does not want this consolation; it makes it mute" ("poetry does not want these consolations; it makes it mute"). It is a "song, a tyranny" that decides the intentions of the rhymer and thwarts their plans. Michon sharply distinguishes between the existing "obsolete poetry" and "the proudly ravaged farmland of the modern," Rimbaud embodying the latter: a radical break with tradition.

The period following Rimbaud's silence, particularly his time in the colonies (Harar, Ethiopia), is interpreted as a radical departure from poetry, not a capitulation, but rather the ultimate consequence of his poetic radicalism. Michon speculates that Rimbaud abandoned writing because he realized that the "verbe" (word/logos) was not the "universal pass" ("passe-droit universel") he had hoped for, and that "only gold had a chance of being that pass." Another suggestion is that he could not accept the "paternity of his works" ("la paternité de ses œuvres"), much like he rejected the paternity of his literary predecessors. In the colonies, he devotes himself to the trade in "antelope hides" ("cuirs d'antilope") and "crates full of rifles whose purpose is lead" ("caisses de fusils, dont le sens est du plomb"), symbolizing a fundamental break with art towards the concrete and material survival. He disappears into the "champs de bananes" (banana fields) with Sotiro, where he sleeps and remains silent ("Il dort" and "Il paraît qu'il se tait").

Rimbaud's homosexuality is portrayed explicitly and drastically in the context of his relationship with Verlaine. Michon describes their first physical encounter as an "old blind bourrée of naked bodies" ("vieille bourrée aveugle des corps nus") in a dark room, where they sought tender love ("l'œillet violet") and clung to the "mast that was not merely a pole" ("mât qui n'était pas la tringle"). This sexual experience is considered essential to Rimbaud's oeuvre, as it saved the Alexandrine "Tringle" from "breaking", unlike Banville's work: "If the pole that holds everything together is not also able to bear – besides the pretty girl and the green inn, besides wanderlust under the twinkling of the stars – the darkness, the ridiculous purple carnation, then this pole is a bad connection that bends, as in Banville's hands." (“If the long tringle is long enough, it also has a beautiful girl and the green color, and the wanderlust is so froufrous d'étoiles, the tringle is also close to the obscurity, the ridicule is violet, the tringle is a mauvais alliage qui plie, comme dans les mains de Banville.") It is also debated whether Rimbaud "only" loved men or was open to both sexes as long as the "émoi" (excitement) was present, or whether he was looking for the "ombre du Capitaine" (shadow figure of the father) or the "chair malheureuse de Vitalie Cuif" (unhappy flesh of Rimbaud's mother Vitalie Cuif). Michon, however, rejects this discussion as irrelevant to poetry: “pour la poésie ce débat est vain”.

The work addresses various works and concepts. Rimbaud's early Latin and French verses are dismissed as "gammes de collégien" (a schoolboy's scales). His major work, "Le Bateau ivre," is presented as a masterpiece polished for Parnassus, in which, however, his true nature is revealed, bringing his mother to tears and triumphing: He had the flawless, obligatory piece of "Le Bateau ivre," meticulously honed from beginning to end to please Parnassus, and to be first in this Parnassus ("il avait le devoir impeccable du Bateau ivre, d'un bout à l'autre limé au plus juste pour plaire au Parnasse, et dans ce Parnasse être le premier"). “Une saison en enfer” is described as “high literature” (“haute littérature”), in which the “voix, celle du roi d’adoration et celle du prophète hors de lui” (the voice of the king of adoration and the voice of the prophet outside himself) struggle, and is characterized as “one of our Gospels” (“un de nos Évangiles”). Concepts such as “genius,” “vision,” “the word,” the “tringle à douze pieds” (the twelve-foot Alexandrine as a symbol of poetic tradition), the “Carabosse” (Vitalie Cuif’s mother as the embodiment of negativity and prose), and the “Gilles de Watteau” (as a metaphor for the interpreter) are recurring terms. The red vest (“gilet rouge”) symbolizes the romantic and rebellious pose of the poet.

In his own writing, Michon explicitly adopts attitudes of uncertainty and searching, using phrases like "on dit que" and "on ne sait si," which reflect his own quest and the elusiveness of Rimbaud. He identifies with Rimbaud's interpreters, the "Gilles," who continually reread and reinterpret his works, and acknowledges that he himself is part of this "hermeneutic carousel." Michon confesses that he and other interpreters read their own stories into Rimbaud's work: "It is a poem we write, each in our own way" ("C'est un poème que nous écrivons, chacun à notre manière"). He describes how Rimbaud “dusts” or “flour-dusts” those who approach him: “Rimbaud has the gift of flour-dusting those who approach him: and saying this, my hands hang limp, I catch a cold; when I beat my lap, flour comes out.” (“Rimbaud a le don d’enfariner ceux qui l’approchent: et ce disant mes mains pendent, je m’enrhume; si je bats mes basques il en sort de la farine.”) This suggests a deep, almost inescapable absorption of Rimbaud’s essence, which shapes his own writing and makes him one of the “Gilles” who dance around Rimbaud. Michon enters the stage of interpretation with full knowledge of its inadequacy, but at the same time with the awareness that the attempt is necessary.

The novel's conclusion

The work's conclusion is characterized by a twofold movement. On the one hand, Rimbaud is left in his silence and solitude in the "champs de bananes" with Sotiro, where he sleeps ("dort") and remains silent ("se tait"), in an unattainable stillness beyond all interpretation. This disappearance is interpreted as the ultimate consequence of his realization that the word alone was not a universal "passe-droit," but perhaps only gold could fulfill this function. On the other hand, the "foire d'empoigne" (the scramble for the best seats) of interpretation begins in Paris. Michon himself adds to this scene of interpretation by contributing his own opinion. The book's final sentence reads: "The pines rustle in a sudden gust of wind, Rimbaud has once again leapt into his dance, we are alone again with pen in hand." (“Les pins bruissent dans un coup de vent brusque, Rimbaud de nouveau a bondi dans sa danse, nous voilà seuls la plume à la main.”) This can be understood metaphorically as Rimbaud, as an elusive phenomenon, constantly eluding grasp and returning to his own incomprehensible existence. The interpreter, the “Gilles,” remains condemned in his solitude to repeatedly attempt to comprehend the unspeakable, even when the rustling of nature or the “gust of wind” of inspiration once again carries the poet away, leaving him alone with the endless task of writing and interpreting. It is a cyclical movement that emphasizes the endlessness and irresolvability of interpretation. Michon concludes his reflection with the concise sentence, “We are commenting on the Vulgate.” (“Nous annotons la Vulgate.”), which symbolizes a return to canonical interpretation and to the ongoing work of interpretation, despite Rimbaud’s flight and the ultimate unattainability of meaning. The act of commenting itself becomes a form of endless engagement with the work, which defies any final definition.

Addendum: William Marx's theses on the farewell of literature

In his work L'adieu à la littérature – histoire d'une devalorisation In 2005, William Marx examined the progressive devaluation of literature from the 18th to the 20th century. He argued that the idea of ​​literature does not possess an unchanging "essence" but is subject to constant "flux" and "transformations." Marx's central thesis states that this development can be divided into three main phases: expansion, autonomization, and devaluation.

Expansion phase

The expansion phase (roughly the early 18th to the late 19th century) was a time of rise and apotheosis for literature, during which it attained immense power and unprecedented prestige. The writer became the "grand prêtre" (high priest) with a quasi-religious function, and literature advanced to the status of a "nouvelle religion" (new religion). Key concepts such as the "sublime" emphasized the emotional impact on the reader and the "transparency of language" ("transparence du langage"), which was meant to provide direct access to reality and emotions. Poetry was viewed as a "critique de la vie" (critique of life) and as a future religion or philosophy. During this period, there was a profound conviction in literature's ability not only to reflect the world but also to shape and interpret it.

Autonomization phase

The autonomization phase (mid-19th century) saw literature, intoxicated by its ascribed powers, succumb to the "tentation de revendiquer son autonomie" (temptation to claim its autonomy). This led to the era of "art for art's sake," a violent separation from society and a focus on "form" as an end in itself. Aesthetics increasingly detached itself from moral or social utility, culminating in "littérature contre la vie" (literature against life). The figure of the "poète maudit" (cursed poet) embodied this antinomy of art and life, often in a tragic way.

Devaluation phase

The period of devaluation (late 19th and 20th centuries) was the inevitable consequence of this development. The isolation sought in the pursuit of pure form transformed into isolation and a perceived uselessness, which became the "tombeau" (grave) of literature. Literature lost its credibility and its ability to process reality, leading to a general "mépris" (distrust). This manifested itself in a "suicide collectif" (collective suicide) of writing, the writer, and criticism. The fundamental question shifted from "What do you write?" to "Pourquoi écrivez-vous?" (Why do you write?). Paradoxically, after catastrophes like the Holocaust, the idea of ​​"pure" literature was perceived as "barbaric."

Rimbaud's role

Rimbaud's role in Marx's argument is of central importance, as he serves as an archetypal example of the "farewell to literature." Marx emphasizes that Rimbaud's departure from poetry, although "one of the most significant events in the history of literature," does not belong "properly to literature" but rather "to pure biography." The curious thing is that there was no formal or literary "farewell" from Rimbaud to poetry; his silence itself is "surrounded by silence."

According to Marx, Rimbaud's friends, critics, and publishers had to "échafauder de toutes pièces" (construct from nothing) an explanatory theory around this enigmatic silence. Their aim was "faire la littérature de la fin de la littérature" (to create the literature of the end of literature) by interpreting this silence as paradoxical proof of his genius. Only someone who had fully plumbed the "vertiges" (abysses) and "prestiges" (charms) of literature could have preferred trading weapons in Abyssinia to lingering in Parisian artistic circles. Rimbaud "ouvrit la voie" (opened the way) by abruptly revealing that there was "une vie en dehors de la poésie" (a life outside of poetry). He “took with him the raisons de vivre de la littérature, sans retour possible” (took with him the very reason for literature’s existence, without return). From that moment on, according to Marx, “writing was no longer a given.” Paulhan directly connects Rimbaud’s writing task and emigration with a “pathological distrust of language” in literature.

Pierre Michon and William Marx

The connection between Michon and Marx reveals different but complementary perspectives on the phenomenon of Rimbaud and his silence. Michon approaches Rimbaud from a subjective, almost mystical and literary inner perspective. He is interested in the inner dynamics of Rimbaud's development as a poet, the origins of his "colère" and "charité," and how these personal dramas shaped his writing and his silence. Michon engages in a kind of autobiography through Rimbaud, blurring the boundaries between his own writing process and that of the poet. For him, Rimbaud's silence is the radical consequence of a profound poetic ambition to either completely master the "verb" or to recognize its inadequacy. His work itself is an example of what Marx described as the "morbid hyperconscience" of literature, which is aware of its own limitations and reflects upon itself. Michon's use of "on dit que" and "on ne sait si" is not only a stylistic device, but also a gesture of humility and continuous searching that keeps the "carousel of interpretation" running.

Marx, however, analyzes Rimbaud's farewell from a sociological and philosophical-historical macro perspective. For him, Rimbaud's decision is not a purely personal event, but a crucial symptom and catalyst for the broader "devaluation" of literature in society. Marx views Rimbaud's silence as a point at which an era of belief in the absolute power of literature definitively came to an end, and modern literature entered an existential crisis from which it has not yet fully emerged. He demonstrates how critics and publishers subsequently "literarized" Rimbaud's silence in order to give it meaning within the context of literary history, instead of simply accepting it as something outside of literature.

While Michon presupposes the existence of poetic genius and the autonomy of art as givens, in order to explore them in their extreme form in Rimbaud and integrate them into his own writing, Marx views precisely this autonomy and appreciation as historically contingent phenomena that led to the isolation and ultimately the decline of literature. Michon's reflections on Rimbaud's homosexuality as an integral, though not exclusive, component of his work ("for poetry this debate is futile") and his profound engagement with individual works such as "Le Bateau ivre" and "Une saison en enfer" aim to grasp the inner poetic necessity of Rimbaud's path. Marx, on the other hand, subsumes these individual biographies and interpretations of works under the larger social and conceptual shifts in literary history. This means that Michon's book itself could become an object of Marxian analysis: as a work that continues the "mythologization" of Rimbaud and thus contributes to maintaining the discourse on "Adieu à la littérature," even if it does so in a personal-artistic rather than a historical-sociological way. Michon's "Nous annotons la Vulgate" is the continuation of that interpretive role which Marx describes as the inevitable reaction to Rimbaud's silence.