This is the poem:
“Get Drunk”
You have to be
always drunk. That's all there is to it--it's the only way. So as not to
feel the horrible burden of time which breaks your back and bends you to
the earth, you have to be continually drunk.
But on what? On wine, on poetry or on virtue, whatever you
wish. But get drunk.
And if sometimes, on the steps of a
palace, on the green grass of a ditch, in the mournful solitude of your
room, you wake up again, the drunkenness already diminished or gone, ask
the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock, everything that is
flying, everything that is groaning, everything that is rolling,
everything that is singing, everything that is speaking. . .ask what time
it is and the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock will answer
you: “It is time to get drunk! So as not
to be the martyred slaves of time, get drunk, get continually drunk! On wine, on poetry or on virtue, whatever you
wish."
And here is my response (sorry for the formal structure, it's for class):
In Charles
Baudelaire’s poem “Enivrez-Vous” (“Get Drunk”), he makes the bold declaration that
we as humans must always be drunk, so as not to be crushed by the oppressive weight
of life. He follows this with the assertion that it doesn’t matter on what we
get drunk, whether it be “on wine, on poetry, or on virtue,” as long as we get
drunk. Now I thought this argument was interesting, as “drunk” can be defined
in a general sense as being unable to make one’s own decisions, and thus
Baudelaire is arguing that it is better to go through life a slave to something
else than it is to make well-thought out decisions. However, what is more
interesting to me, though not entirely mutually exclusive, is the likening of
poetry and virtue to substances equally as capable of robbing a person of
sobriety as wine and the ways these substances can lead to insobriety.
First let’s examine poetry. Poetry
is a creation. Poetry and writing in general provide the deepest reflections of
a soul. Poetry serves as a canvas for those who write it and a mirror for those
who read it. Poetry reveals far more about the person interpreting it than it
does its subject. So if this is our definition and understanding of poetry,
then how is it intoxicating? I think that the expression and reflection a poem
provides often results in passion. We have a passion for knowing ourselves and an
even greater passion for knowing others. And from passion, both scientifically
and emotionally, comes an elation that robs us of our self-control. We whoop
for joy. We weep great tears. We scream in agony. So it seems that poetry
intoxicates by playing to our passions and freeing us from our inhibitions.
Now let’s take a look at virtue.
Where poetry was freeing, virtue is confining. Virtue limits one’s actions to a
set moral compass. While virtue’s limits on actions set it apart from the freed
action of poetry and wine, it can still get someone drunk. By removing a person’s
options, virtue allows for a certain freedom of decision. Morals limit a
decision to one option, thereby removing the moment of crisis that comes with
making said decision. Virtue removes one’s ability to make one’s decision by
removing all decisions in one’s life, thereby adhering to our definition of “drunk.”
Finally I think it’s important to
consider what effect this has on the poem. Our initial reading of the poem
suggested that Baudelaire is arguing that we be slaves rather than thinking
beings. However, poetry suggests just the opposite - that we need to be freed
from our inhibitions in order to live life to its fullest and not be “slaves of
time.” Thus the lack of control inherent in being drunk, whether off wine or
the passion of poetry, frees us from the weight of the world. However, virtue
suggests that this inebriation is also possible through enslavement to a master
other than time, namely morals. Virtue frees us from time by freeing us from
decision, making us drunk off of morals. After examining poetry and virtue as inebriants,
our reading must then be adapted to encompass the freedoms they supply. I
propose instead that Baudelaire is suggesting that in order to live life to its
fullest we must have all the cares of everyday life lifted from our shoulders
in any way we can.
Not included in original essay -
I'm not sure if I agree with this poem or not. On one hand, I think drunkeness provides us with one extremely valuable resource: the ability to just say or do something without regard for other people's opinions. On the other hand there are few things I value more than intelligent discourse, which can only come about with carefully weighted decision making. So I think if we go with the final reading of the poem I proposed and limit it to certain situations, then I'd agree. For example, its a lot easier to tell a girl you think she's beautiful if you have given up on all your inhibitions. But those same inhibitions help us debate things like politics, science, religion, morals, literature, and pretty much everything else. So I think in making decisions of the self, our hearts should be ruled by passion or morality, but in decisions regarding others and matters of intellect we should let our brains do the talking. But that's just my opinion, what do you think?
