1

Namely, in the lines at the bottom of the p. 72 (wikisource):

Les fruits des espaliers se tuméfient;
Dans les feuillages noirs,
Les pousses jeunes s’atrophient;
L’herbe se brûle et les germoirs,
Subitement, fermentent;
Le soleil ment, les saisons mentent,
Le soir, sur les plaines envenimées,
C’est un vol d’ailes allumées
De souffre roux et de fumées.

First of all, I think that it is a typo and it should be "soufre", with one 'f'. So this literally translates to "red sulfur". I've found out that it could mean a hypothetical component of Philosopher's stone, but that would be "soufre rouge" in French.

So what does "soufre roux" (or "souffre roux" if it's not a typo) actually mean?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    It does look like a typo; else it must be an invented word. In addition to your findings, let me suggest souffle roux (reddish gust, like the fumes from the steel mills) and soufrés roux (orange sulphurs, of the sp. colias eurytheme),
    – François Jurain
    Commented Sep 22 at 16:15
  • 3
    This being poetry, there is no need for every word to have a clear cut meaning either. It could be that this works well here in terms of sounds or evocative power.
    – Frank
    Commented Sep 22 at 18:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

It is a typo and the words soufre roux are to be understood in their literal meaning.

Theses line are from Les campagnes hallucinées, this collection of poems is the first book of his "social trilogy" (Les Campagnes hallucinées, Les Villes tentaculaires and Les Aubes) in which Verhaeren describes the transformation of the rural landscape brought about by the pollution caused by industrialisation at the end of the 19th century. In the three parts of his trilogy Verhaeren uses the word soufre several times¹, only in Les campagnes hallucinées is it spelt wrongly. Some later editions corrected the error. Whether the mistake was in the original manuscript or due to a misprint I don't know, in some later editions of Les campagnes hallucinées the spelling is rectified.

In all the occurrences soufre/souffre is referring to the chemical element. There's absolutely no way Verhaeren would mention anything like the Philosopher's stone. Verhaeren describes the destruction of nature by smoke, soot and sulphuric acid deposits. In these lines the souffre roux is one of the components of the pollution that reflects on the feathers of the crows. Colours, light, shadows, all play an important part in this work and contribute to the general atmosphere. Whether the sulphuric dust is actually red is not relevant, sulphur is part of the pollution and it is mixed with other polluting components.

As an art critic Émile Verhaeren promoted impressionism. And it's no wonder that the landscapes he describes in his trilogy brings to my mind some works by impressionist painters such as Monet, Pissaro, Guillaumin...

¹ Un air de soufre et de naphte s'exhale,
Un soleil trouble et monstrueux s'étale; (Les villes tentaculaires)

Les cieux vivants sont dévorés par les fumées ;
L’herbe saine, la plante vierge et les moissons
Mangent du soufre et des poisons (Les aubes)

Improve this answer
10
  • 1
    And of course, it's soufre roux and not soufre rouge because he's talking about reddish sulfur pollution, and not the component of the Philosopher's stone (red sulfur in English and soufre rouge in French, which may or may not have been a real chemical compound).
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Sep 23 at 15:31
  • @PeterShor Thanks for this scientific detail. My remark was purely from what I know of Verhaeren's social and artistic leanings, my knowledge in chemistry is very limited.
    – None
    Commented Sep 23 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Lambie Thanks, removed the extra s, of course we aren't talking about ciggies ! Uncountable here. Maybe if you read the whole trilogy (or ate least the first two collections of poems, you'll get why some impressionist paintings come to my mind, the colours, greys & reds, the fog, the smoke, ... just try the sis first stanzas of l'âme de la ville
    – None
    Commented Sep 23 at 17:13
  • 2
    @Lambie not all impressionist paintings evoke beauty. Let's take Monet, I can see a great difference between what he painted in his garden at Giverny and the surrounding countryside (the grainstacks, the poppy field,...) and his paintings of Rouen Cathedral, the gare Saint-Lazare, les déchargeurs, the House of Parliament.. And Pissaro's Port de Rouen or Usine à Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône are a far cry from what he painted at Éragny.
    – None
    Commented Sep 23 at 17:31
  • 1
    @Lambie: None said some works by Impressionist painters. Did you look at the Monet and Pissaro paintings None linked to? Where's the nature in them? You can't paint all impressionist artists with the same brush.
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Sep 25 at 14:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.