Allegory, in
Benjamin, is applied to the field of seventeenth century German Baroque Drama,
or Trauerspiel, wherein allegorical figures are literally centre stage. By the
seventeenth century, both pagan and Christian symbolism has been endlessly
reinterpreted by subsequent forms of life. Thus:
the plurality of pagan and Christian cosmologies that had been amassed
in history and preserved in those authoritative texts
Baroque drama
comes at a time when the detritus of various traditions, stockpiled, at what
was thought to be the End of History, were re-invested with meaning by the
allegorist’s fancy. The allegorist exercised sovereign power in the realm of
dead objects and remaindered symbolic materials. Half claiming to uncover
secret or hidden meanings, half aware that the meanings had been conferred by
his or own executive decision.
The reason why
Benjamin’s text, dealing with (to most readers in the English-speaking world)
arcane and unknown plays and documents, has exercised such fascination for some
is, I think, twofold. Firstly, Benjamin’s book is itself a prime example of
Modernist writing, perhaps deliberately obscure, circuitous, bristling with
difficulty and offering itself as an object – recalcitrant and cross-grained –
of interpretation. We might place it in the same category as Joyce’s Ulysses or
Heidegger’s Being and time. Written in a highly idiosyncratic style which seems
also the signature and indirect portrait of an individual, inviting and
spawning imitation from the academic world that belatedly recognised it. On the
other hand it is clear that in focusing so intently on obscure 17
For Modernism,
or a strain of it, is precisely this practice of amassing the fragments of past
traditions, regarded now as a kind of “stockpile” unplugged from their specific
context, benefiting from their aura or ghost-lights of significance, but at the
same time playfully constructing some new thing from these ruins and remnants,
and delighting in the authorial power to create that new meaning.
There are
doubtless obvious and varied examples of this, from Eliot to Pound and Joyce.
But I’d like to pause at a very particular example from Yeats, where this
duality can be seen very clearly.
The central
symbol in Yeats’s early poetry is the Rose. Yeats choses what is perhaps the
most over-written symbol in Western tradition. It’s worth
noting first of all that the Rose is a textbook illustration of Benjamin’s
point about Pagan symbols appropriated by Christianity. The Rose had “had long
been the flower of Venus and so of sexual license.”
“Identified with woman from earliest times and the classical attribute
of the goddess of earthly love, the pagan queen of flowers reappears quite
naturally as the chief symbol of the Christian queen of heaven.”
We find it also in Dante:
At the end of his
In the 17
Sufficiently vague, the Rosicrucian flower had certain advantages over
its Catholic counterpart.
What the
Rosicrucians (and later Yeats) do with the Rose, is to divorce the
Yeats will later
add his own Irish gloss to the symbol:
Rose – The rose is a favourite symbol with the Irish poets, and has given a name to several poems both Gaelic and English, and is used in love poems, in addresses to Ireland like Mr Aubrey de Vere’s poem telling how “the little black rose shall be red at last,” and in religious poems, like the old Gaelic one which speaks of “the Rose of Friday,” meaning the Rose of Austerity.
These successive re-drawings significance, over many
years, point simultaneously to two different interpretations:
1.
2.
1.
2.
These two
understandings of the Rose, as an essence eluding its symbolisation and as a
pliable sign open to manipulation correspond to two subjective positions:
1. The subject is a passive supplicant, supine before a Thing which is utterly opaque and overwhelming, its ‘deep’ magnetism, recurrently eluding his grasp.
2. The subject actively invests with meaning what is an “inert” and conventional item of poetic machinery, emptied of intrinsic meaning.
1. The subject is a passive supplicant, supine before a Thing which is utterly opaque and overwhelming, its ‘deep’ magnetism, recurrently eluding his grasp.
2. The subject actively invests with meaning what is an “inert” and conventional item of poetic machinery, emptied of intrinsic meaning.
The
early Yeats tends towards the former two positions (1 and 1). But even in the early Yeats
there is a hesitation between, as it were, invoking (ie whatever the Rose
represents) and But the ambivalence we find in the early Yeats, but
also in much Modernism, has to do with authority. Is authority being lent by
Tradition, albeit a secret one, or is it being created by the peremptory force
of poetic magic.
In German Baroque Drama, in Modernism, and in Yeats, this ambivalence is embedded already in history - the subject of the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment