inventor of several unpublished poems of Rimbaud? (Fourth and last part) By David Dutra Ducoffre
There are other indications of authenticity to observe more closely . In 1925, the text of Delahaye had a new publication as a book called Memories familiar and it's a new version of the poem which we then presented. The poem has four extra lines which meet one of Hugo's consummate art processes. The rehearsal proclitic trimeter by the caesura: "I my femur! I have my femur! I have my femur! ", Inspired by the boldness of the most advanced theater and Hugo's Les Fleurs du Mal Baudelaire. We find this practice dear to Hugo and Verlaine repeats distributed as it contradictory to the plane metric: "That's forty years since I bistourne +", "The femur worked for forty years! ; The four additional to replace exactly one line of dots version of 1908, which proves that Delahaye had immediately aware of presenting a truncated text at this location. Add these four to promote obscene equivocation around the word "femur". These four lines have they been censored in 1908, the life of Isabella?
Witness of Rimbaud's life ended up sacrificing the words of the first half-line with its occurrence confusing word "irruait. But what needs attention is the grooming of punctuation. We saw above that both in these verses that this relationship in his prose, Delahaye offered an abundance of exclamation points followed by suspension points "! ..." or "?!... This punctuation Wild is penalized on the printed text of 1925, where exclamation points appear self-sufficient, "Apostle!", "the Sit n / About Us!", "bald! "" Forty years of siege! "The quotes also disappear. Only Steve Murphy dreamed up such variants. However, we do not know by what legerdemain, it is arguable that the trimeter "I have my femur! I have my femur! I have my femur! "Was transcribed:" I have my femur! I have my femur! I have my femur! "in 1908, although he admits that this verse and the three that follow it in 1925 were absent from the original version, as it is easy to verify the above. In all cases, Washing it is revealing. The poem reflects specific practices in the nineteenth century and, if the punctuation is enriched familiar prose of Delahaye, will anyone believe he was using either actually in verse poetry? This lack of respect is more likely Rimbaud. At first glance, such daring is local, scarce even in the writings of Arthur. Someone will say, 'Damn, so the forger would be an otherwise enterprising Delahaye Rimbaud! "No, because it is even less likely that two poems of Rimbaud Album zutique have a more abundant use this particular method of punctuation. Now this famous Album zutique was discovered only long after the publication of Memories familiar in 1908 and 1925: Delahaye was therefore unable to draw the poem Exile to five out of six punctuated by an exclamation mark followed by a variable number of dots "!....", "" .. "" !.... , "," !.... ""! ... " nor Remembrances of old fool, another animated satire that presents five examples of such a type of punctuation "!" ... "to which add a variant with a question mark" Forgiven? ... "and probably also the case still good especially the cadenza, exclamation point over the final point:" And do we draw the line!. "According to Steve Murphy in 1999 Rimbaud "seems to have entered an ellipsis after but not shown in the fac-s." The remark seems more than ever well founded. It is now difficult to doubt: Delahaye actually transcribes a manuscript Rimbaud! ...
Finally, in his edition of Poems Steve Murphy drew attention to the arrangement of rhymes. It is obviously a poem into quintiles. Four stanzas we have finally arrived. The first known cinquain seems incomplete for the three syllables of a name convention Boor preferred silence modestly. But to trust to the version of 1908, begins with a cinquain proposal: "Whose irruait nave ..." We're missing is the beginning of the poem. Called almost all of the poem, the 1908 version was amputated four verses of the third quintile known: do we miss out a single original cinquain? How to explain this loss the beginning of the poem, which recalls the lost case of another poem in quintiles Man just that we miss the first twenty verses? Delahaye he had access to a mutilated manuscript? Slips of the poem had they been separated? The beginning of the poem he was transcribed at the end of a letter has disappeared? Modesty would explain it to withhold the beginning of the poem?
Why Delahaye he also maintained dotted lines after each of the first two quintiles? Yet it is trying to trust him when he pretends to quote almost entire poem. Strangely, the fusion of the third and fourth quintile is not known as the default print edition of the familiar Memories in 1925. For, as it was in 1908 Delahaye mistakenly published the latest to the third Cinquain known company of only four known to the bottom quintile. Poorly rhymed, the "stanza" of 1908 was perfectly hybrid, but we can not fail to reproduce the new state in 1925, which is not explained it is not a complete correction. Four novel to allow recovery of a cinquain world, but, inexplicably, is central to the bottom quintile, which continues to desperately miss the call. These quintiles have a rhyme scheme ABABA type. Not reported by Delahaye, it omitted the reference to a penultimate rhymes with "born-"! This appeared to missing it at the bottom of the leaf manuscript? The leaflet was it torn, defaced at this point? Were there any reasons not to disclose this Alexandrian? Delahaye has he forgotten in 1908, before you forget to add in 1925? Again, it is impossible to solve anything in the current state of our knowledge. To invite the four unreleased still think that Delahaye consulted the manuscript beyond 1908, unless he has held in reserve to four on a transcript personal. Quote this passage, but also a sample of prose which frames and which reflects a significant reworking of the text:
[...] In another room, the Republican author of the pamphlet is taken to part of a much more severe. It is this time in the presence of the enemy that threatens his influence in his glory, and here I can quote from a good piece great fun. Listen to this man who ran, breathless, panting with fury
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... You
Menti, on my femur, you lied, fawn
Apostle! Want to Sit n
From Us? You want to peel our bald?
But I have two femurs bistournés and burned!
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Because you seep daily college
On your coat collar enough for a donut,
Whether you're a dentist mask, at the armory
A horse plucked drooling in a cone,
Think erase my forty years of seat!
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....
Then he straightens, majestic, magnificent, it confuses Northeast and pulverized forever:
I my femur! I have my femur! I have my femur!
is what forty years I bistourne
On the edge of my chair loved in hickory;
printing wood stays there forever;
And when j'apercevrai, me, your body impure
To all your subscribers, Epistle [sic], to your subscribers,
Pertractant this body slumped in their hands,
I will edit, all tomorrows
femur This worked for forty years! (1)
Such literature, although it s'égayât the expense of its opponents point captivated Mr. N ... It really came out of his habits too.
(1) An excuse to explain something that everybody understands. This is a "sitting" stubborn old man that does not change his opinion and that symbolizes the Ardennes Email ; he stayed so long on the same chair as the edges of the cabinet had "worked" his femur as the chisel of a sculptor.
This explanatory note Delahaye shows he does not know the meaning of the poem. Is it a veil thrown over the use of obscenity in the singular "femur"? An impression prevails strongly. Everything happens as if the writer was unaware of dealing with a poem in quintiles. The first two are separated by dots instead of simple white typography. The next two are melted into one another. We can not agree with the presentation of the poem by Steve Murphy in his edition of Poems . The bottom two quintiles are announced by a prose text that demarcates the previous two quintiles, while the dotted lines can be clearly associated with either an initiative of the poet, or a state of incomplete document. Finally, neither in 1908 nor in 1925, Delahaye does observe the gap in the penultimate verse, clear gap in terms of rhyme scheme. Steve Murphy is one that has targeted this anomaly in its 1999 edition, but with a covering note suggesting that awkward Delahaye himself warned us: "The poem seem to be organized into quintiles (non-typographical if we can trust Delahaye) with Scheme rimique ababa : a v. thereby missing the last quintile where indicated . This critical remark reveals a penchant for Steve Murphy to believe in the authenticity of the poem. However, Delahaye had noticed nothing at all in terms of versification of the poem, which contributes not a little to thicken the mystery of this quotation. Is it possible that he did not have access to a document first hand? How could he add four lines to the poem?
For those who want to offer these last two quintiles, dare we suggest the following transcript (note punctuation our hypothetical trimeter !...):
I have my femur ! ... I have my femur! ... I have my femur! ...
is why for forty years I bistourne
On the edge of my chair loved in hickory;
printing wood stays there forever;
j'apercevrai And when I, your body impure
To all your subscribers, clown, to your subscribers,
Pertractant this body sprawled with their hands,
[...]
I will retouch for all tomorrows
This
femur worked for forty years!
Needless to continue to think of fabrications from Delahaye. The question is who possessed manuscripts of "unclean", that of a stanza from June 71 against Desdouets (Delahaye that did not bother to recall in his book Memories of familiar 1925 ) and a fragment of a poem into quintiles? Delahaye? Perrin? Berry? Verlaine? New? A Ardennes? Where are these manuscripts today? That's real and right now unanswerable questions. And what a great lack of clarity of public Rimbaud! ... What a lesson! ... To take things at the very least, it brought us to let slip the manuscripts of two unpublished poems! ...