(Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture) Rolf J

LITERATURE AS THE MEDIUM OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY
101
witness to adverse political events, he responds to these by theologizing
his thoughts. Benjamin interprets the satanism in Les fleurs du mal as a
form of Gnostic religiosity, which in its blasphemy anticipates a salvation
of the world from its derelict state by mobilizing the forces of Satan. In
the “Doppelgesicht des Satans” (GS I.2:525; “dual aspect of Satan”)
he not only perceives “das finstere Haupt Blanquis” (GS I.2:524; the
dark head of Blanqui) but also that of Napoleon III, implying that Satan
speaks “nicht nur für die Unteren sondern auch für die Oberen” (GS
I.2:525; “not only for the upper crust but for the lower classes as well,”
SW 4:10–11). This double portrait, which Benjamin inscribes into the
figure of the devil, once again reveals the imminent threats to Europe
posed by Stalin’s and Hitler’s totalitarianism.
Thus Baudelaire himself seems to have entrusted his fortunes to
the Janus-faced devil, whom he made his guiding spirit in the guise of
Satan Trismegistos in the opening poem of Les fleurs du mal. Benjamin
points to the fact that the figure of the poet is marked by a deep ambivalence
— certainly one reason why Baudelaire appears as disparaging for
the true revolutionary cause as Blanqui. His work is not only a reflection
of his times: it also bears the mark of Cain in its historical origin.
Above all, it is marked by the blind rage of the professional conspirator.
As an illustration Benjamin maintains that Baudelaire fancied himself in
the “culte de la blague” (cult of bad jokes) of a Georges Sorel oder a
Céline by contriving a “schöne Konspiration . . . zwecks Ausrottung der
jüdischen Rasse” (GS I.2:516; “fine conspiracy for the purpose of exterminating
the Jewish race,” SW 4:5). Moreover, his allegorical method of
writing assaults the reader with nearly the same tactics attributed to Blanqui’s
putschist activities; as Benjamin implies, his tropes startle the reader
with unpredictable meanings and often leave him bewildered.
Benjamin accentuates the “tiefe Duplizität” (“profound duplicity”)
of Baudelaire’s lyrics: “Sie hatte ein Ohr für die Gesänge der Revolution,
aber auch ein Ohr für die ‘höhere Stimme,’ die aus dem Trommelwirbel
der Exekutionen spricht” (GS I.2:527; “It had an ear for the songs of the
revolution and also for the ‘higher voice’ which spoke from the drum
roll of the executions,” SW 4:12). In the final portion of “Die Bohème”
this paradoxical condition becomes the foundation for what is a surprising
analysis of literary media, especially given the context of his political
intentions. According to his view, the literary market is marked by the
dominance of the mass press during the second half of the nineteenth
century. In contrast to the information and advertisements that are its
central content, literature is only able to seek sanctuary in its feuilleton
sections. While the increase in advertisement guarantees the possibility
of better payment for the feuilletons, it is also one of the primary reasons
for the corruption of the press, which Benjamin criticizes with the
kind of verve that is reminiscent of the Austrian satiric writer Karl Kraus.