Voluntary intrusions

As the pivot of the N in «Nature» in the first line of the poem does not obstruct the eyelet, it is impossible to use the notion of the pivot alone to define every figure of speech which occurs in a concrete way within a group of significances, and so many of the relationships linking thought with the material marks used to record it must be re-examined. First of all, meaning and sign should be seen as partially interdependent. We also consider that any elementary significance has a meaning, represented by a word or symbol, for a considerable length of time, within a community [905]-[906]. A text, with its various additions, whether physical or mental, is called a heap, and the notion of the rail must be widened to include the notion of heaps, whether real or invented. Any sign or meaning which is permanently in the heap, whether an idea, a symbol, a word, a support or a freestone, is called a shard. Its existence in no way depends on fugitive circumstances, unlike the unintentional grimace of an actor which will not be present in a later performance of the same play. The shard may or may not break the eyelet. The use of capital letters, A, E, H… is extended to the shards. A crucible is a heap the main significance of which, called the thread, is at least roughly apparent. Such a crude assessment of ideas would become impossible if the flow of the discourse were constantly interrupted by certain decisive but irrational expressions, such as a long series of cries without prior meditation, caused by such great pain that any internalization was impossible. A wad can be summarized as two things found in some crucibles: a shard hindering the eyelet, or a pivot. Any crucible with a thread that can be delivered just by freestones, terms or pivots is called a crib. A verbal example of this is given by the whole sonnet „Correspondences“, since it has this kind of thread. Conversely, if a group of sounds includes a sequence of musical notes of great force, mingling in with the compartments, it could not be described as a crib. A rep in a crib is a wad desired by the creator and not obtained using any common poetic device such as assonance, metre, accent or rhyme. The heap before the intrusion of the rep is its tumulus and the idea of the rep is given the symbol (-¦¦¦¦-).

New devices are needed to understand the reps more precisely. First there are a group of twelve functions together called the shed. To define certain ambiguous figures, one of their characteristics in particular is stressed. Then a literary or mythological objective is required of the turn of phrase. Next, any highly elaborate encoding is eliminated and fourthly no contributions to knowledge are allowed. The intellectual forms of pleonasm, as well as ambiguity, opposition and abstract irony are rejected as are numerous puns arising without any material deformation such as “the baker needs his dough”. The oral takes precedence, so that we transcribe as (patience-¦¦¦¦-patients) the sentence “old doctors never die they just lose their patience”. The eighth function turns to a description of the heap relating to the type of language used, as in “it’s tracked her”. For the commentary, unless there is a good reason, any distancing from the concrete as in “its tractor” is to be avoided. Next a statement is preferred to an explanation. In this way “it’s tracked her” counts more than its different meanings. The eleventh function is to place outside the zone of the objects studied, the play on the place given to signs, once there is any uncertainty involved. This is the case with “Paula met Jay when she was going to the market”. Finally, we call a word anything close to being one in the level of language concerned. The prefix “per” in «perfumes» is thus called a word, since there exists a preposition with this form. The second group of methods used to analyse the figures consists of two descriptive notations, (F-) and (S-), the cog-wheels, used together or singly. The first, (F-), contains an “appearance” or “fact” and the second, (S-), has the meaning “exegesis” or “supposition”.

With the aim of following the reps of a heap, the tenures can be distinguished as being the shards involved in these reps. They constitute the glebe, or the segment of the heap giving the turn of phrase. Often it is the glebe that is mentioned before the symbol (-¦¦¦¦-) of the formula. The commentary on it is called the ceiling. In “we did not see any sign of illegal activity but the labour inspector told me that the lamplighter was concealing the moon”, we can imagine (the lamplighter was concealing the moon-¦¦¦¦-the moonlighter was concealing the lamp) with the disposition (glebe, ceiling) [826]. Sometimes it is impossible to obtain the glebe and so it is just described, as in “a yellow stain on the paper where "gold" is written”. There are three varieties in the analysis of the ceiling: the substitute, which has to replace the glebe in an imaginary rail; the condiment, which remains outside the phenomena so as to describe it; and the agglomerate which combines the two aspects. The substitute “the moonlighter was concealing the lamp” has already been seen. According to the shed, it is the best ceiling. However, in order to remain intelligible regarding “noises of throat clearing close by surprised her: AHEM, AHem, Ahem, ahem” the condiment must be chosen from (AHEM, AHem, Ahem, ahem-¦¦¦¦-gradual clearing of the voice). The agglomerate “inversion sth-st” is useful for “an astmatic asthronomer”.

The braids are actions on the tenures within the reps. They are given the symbols: a-, f-, j-, t-, r-. The fining (a-) suppresses something concrete, not linked to anything else, with a missing part we cannot fail to recognize: “liberty, gality, fraternity”. Next there is the casting (f-) which acts by interrupting, uniting or selecting, but keeping intact the order imagined for the tumulus: “a painintheback”, “he fellill”. The juggling (j-) is an exchange modifying the original order: “she was surprised by the exbihition”. The subsidence (t-) adds, enlarges or invents: “he collapsed, so there, boom”. Finally there is the recovery (r-): “She could not bear to see the bear suffer”.

The layers of language within the glebes are called gathers and to define them, the names of sounds or letters, such as “the i” must be excluded. Once this precaution has been taken, three gathers remain: basic (b-), medium (m-), and high (h-). The basic gather (b-) relates to the most elementary things: emptiness, silence, mark of any freestone, non-linguistic sounds, drawing, onomatopoeia, underlining, distorted letters, accent or tone, unconventional signs, isolated symbols, consonants: thus the “g” removed from “engineer”. The medium gather (m-) appears in rapid diction, agglutinative writing, a vowel or a syllable which does not become a word. The high gather (h-) covers the rest, including even sentences.

The gather plus the braid together give the log, which helps to define the reps. With several figures of this type based closely together, and with the same level of individual plausibility, a composite figure is formed, with the sign (/-¦¦¦¦-/). In certain cases, pieces come from several logs, as in “they were hudcovring up” in which the words were separated into pieces some of which were then reassembled, giving a combination of three castings. The subject of the present calculation is found in the reps and composite figures.

The log a-b-, with a basic fining, removes from the text, or whatever accompanies it, a linguistic or other element, something less than the syllable or the vowel. It can be seen in “this patient is still uffering”.

The medium fining (a-m-) requires at least one syllable or vowel to be removed, as long as it does not constitute a word. Such a figure would be “familiar eys”.

The high fining (a-h-) requires one or more words to be suppressed. For a successful rep, prior knowledge of the expression is at least useful. To understand the meaning of “They have no bread? Let them eat…”, one must call to mind the flippant remark attributed to a certain Queen of France concerning the desires of her people in the throes of revolution, allegedly drunk with their newfound power [312]- [873].

The basic casting (f-b-) operates on an elementary, concrete level, such as in “we surpri sed them”, and does not change the sequence adhered to by the tumulus. In the acrostic, the log (f-b-) works by selection. The first letter of each line is linked to all the others, and for someone following the order of the poem, a verbal segment is formed vertically on the left. If a minority of vowels is used, the shed allows such a log to be seen here. With fewer consonants, there will be a medium casting.

The medium casting (f-m-) only tackles fusions and conserves the order of the tumulus, as seen in: “he has lostmuch”.

The action of the high casting (f-h-) is at word level, giving the composite “satonawallhadagreatfall”. The ease of recognizing the nursery rhyme does not entirely compensate for the extremely rapid pronunciation of the clump of words, so maintaining the status of intrusion for this play on words.

The basic juggling (j-b-) changes the place of letters or sounds that do not contain vowels, such as “the terrible task of lolting the bells was given to that strapping lad”.

The medium juggling (j-m-) concerns a vowel or syllable that does not constitute a word and changes the accepted order of the tumulus. Thus “he loved listening to the bbishru spoken in the pub” gives us the pattern (F-bbishru-¦¦¦¦-S-rubbish).

The high juggling (j-h-) changes the order of words: “Victor Flaubert and Gustave Hugo”, “the heroic dress of the red soldier”. A marked contrast gives “in his wood, he ate mostly rabbits and √”.-///M-///Many artists saw jokes as barriers to gaining access to the most important significances of their time, or feared that they would be considered crude and vulgar.

The basic subsidence (t-b-) consists of an addition which does not directly replace anything and concerns any mark of a freestone, sound, consonant, unusual sign or elementary sound. It may seem purely decorative: “she is so overbworked, has she any time for us?” A similar effect comes from the trope “the storm caused many cries and * without ceasing”. In this field, it is easy to use onomatopoeia: “she fell in, splosh”. This recourse to the physical often makes people smile, but it is accompanied after a moment’s thought by a connotation and in this way the mental exercise embellishes our grasp of the intrusion.

The medium subsidence (t-m-) adds to a passage a vowel or syllable not likely to form a word on its own. This gives “the doctor is too takeun up with his gout to treat my cold!”

The high subsidence, indicated by (t-h-), uses an added word or symbol which appears of no use: “his stated intention of proceeding by stages, 1, 2…13 etc. is designed merely to make us forget his lack of any real goal”.

The basic recovery (r-b-) uses a simple repetition of a sound, graph or consonant, such as is seen in “existence has thousands of asspects”.

The medium recovery (r-m-) uses a vowel or syllable incapable of forming a word. It can be seen in “a hard-fought viictory”.

In the high recovery (r-h-), the same word or expression occurs several times. The result may be vagueness, but also ridiculousness, depending on the context.

The connector is a buffer which has the effect of completely invalidating the obstacle of distance. The first kind of connector is seen in a reference of the type “this was mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 28”. The second variety is less easy to see and we call it a hardener. It is limited to uniting two words or symbols and cannot be extended to the immediate context. We see it in action when, without any explicit cross-reference, two declarations with something in common are placed decisively so that the public is lead to link the two notions.

Cases of illusion could tend to make us imagine the presence of rep even though this figure belongs to coded messages, poetic constructions, mistakes in writing, results of accidents and habitual applications. In the same way, oral accents, which seem intrusive, have nothing in common with the sought-for trope most of the time. A series of criteria to prevent any misunderstanding is therefore necessary to identify the plausibility of the turns of phrase in question.

The size which measures the plausibility of the declaration “the creator wanted a rep or composite here” is called the manse. It has ten leavens in the denominator: 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å). These are called (õ), conservatory; (ñ), chest; (ã), dresser; (ù), glaze; (ò), cartage; (ì), boss; (â), varnish; (û), headroom; (ô), surround; (å), combe. For “õ, ñ, ã”, read “o, n, a tilde”; and “å” is pronounced “a circle”. In the calculation, the notion of the rivet is again necessary in order to disregard any quantity below 1/16.

The conservatory õ=1 measures the advantage of avoiding some dangers for the glebe. A heap which cannot achieve the level of a crib gives õ=2. The same goes for an alleged rep which does not reach the fifteen logs and does not provide a recognizable composite. When there is just one trope on its own, õ= 2 is appropriate too. Another situation making õ=1 impossible is when two speech systems become confused with each other. The amount õ=2 must be accepted also when there is a risk of taking for an intrusion the importance attached to something in the heap, because of the idea that a very small circle wants to convey. This value of õ=2 is all the more required if the audience is not prepared to understand the turn of phrase. If the context absorbs the figure, making it imperceptible or seemingly surmountable, õ=2 is once again justified.

For a conservatory of õ=1, the internal solidarity of meaning, contained in or suggested by the tenures, gives ñ=1. Equally if õ=1, ñ=1 applies if the rep is backed by a hardener. Such a buffer should be sought, not only with refrains but also with anything that imitates them. Without unity or connectors, since the internal distance of the glebe risks damaging the trope, the number (n) of fronts between the extremes of the turn of phrase has to be investigated, with the chest giving a quantity ñ=2+(1(n/10)). Furthermore with õ=2, ñ=2 can be accepted in a situation of continuity of speech, of a reminder, or when a hardener is present. With the other devices, ñ=2+(1(n/10)) proves to be the means of obtaining the desired leaven. There is no problem in dealing with the composites since (ñ) is evaluated as if the tenures all came together from a single rep.

The dresser (ã) equals 2 when the ceiling strongly threatens to be unfaithful to the sense of the glebe, seen after the whole heap. In (F-Correspondances/-¦¦¦¦-/S-Corps, responds, danse) (F- Correspondences/-/-/S-Body, respond, dance), the ceiling “Corps, responds, danse” (Body, respond, dance) seems so far from the rest of the poem that there is no difficulty in putting ã=2. On the other hand, a tenable commentary, especially with a buffer to back it up, justifies ã=1.

The glaze ù=2 is necessary when, apart from the intrusion itself, there is some clumsy turn of phrase, according to the criteria of the time, in the external presentation of the ceiling.

The cartage (ò) can be equal to 2 in several cases. Firstly if a buffer shows that the creator is ignorant of, or hostile to, the supposed play on words. Next if historical information would make the imagined rep suspiciously anachronistic or gratuitous. Also in a situation in which is tenable that the author used certain continuous forms of versification, or even that he used some means to temporarily meet this aim. In the same way, ò=2 appears valid if the critics notice they lack knowledge to grasp the meaning of the glebe. Finally, ò=2 is applicable when a careless mistake or oversight may have occurred. The leaven is worth 1 in all other cases, in particular for a buffer favourable to the trope conceived.

The boss (ì) should be analysed based on a series of cases. For a glebe which allows a transition to the abstract, leading to a contradiction, an allusive form, an opposition or a pleonasm, (ì) is 2. Equally ì=2 when there is some ambiguity of construction in the words. In all other cases ì=1.

The varnish â=2 is appropriate if a lengthy learning process is necessary to change the linguistic code in order to understand the glebe in the sense of the ceiling, or if the operation requires a key that is impossible to reconstitute easily, and which the critics have obtained. The use of a cipher, an obscure idiom, these are all harmful to the quantities measuring the plausibility of the rep. Conversely, if there seems to be no threat of this type, â=1 applies. A play on words or ornament of some kind are not sufficient to give â=2 and a system, either on a high or common level, which exceeds the capacities of intuition, is required.

The headroom û=2 is acceptable in two cases. If the glebe may appear technical or learned, û=2 is appropriate. This is because, if the aim is to understand, it seems difficult to meet the aim of the physical intrusion. Then, û=2 is expected in relation to all marks of freestones, designs, diagrams or symbols used in the breaks between several intellectual stages. However, we exclude from the situations giving û=2 all those in which learning has an artistic role. There is therefore all the more reason for the other devices to give û=1.

The surround (ô) is 2 if the trope comes from distinct or imperative customs within which a creator is working. In this case, as the author had not definitely decided on the intrusion imagined, ô=2 is applicable. For the writer who is trying to introduce a material contrast in an original way, ô=1 must be the result.

For the combe (å) a value of 2 is acceptable as soon as the critics suspect some accident, falsification or error which has had an effect on the glebe. Even if the creator did not desire a rep, an unintentional stain or a whim of a previous reader can sometimes have damaged a book. Conversely, å=1 in any situation in which such a misadventure appears impossible.

Let us write the rail “Correspondences -Sympathies of the great temple where man passes…There are…beings of the senses who sing of sympathies…” As the words before “homme” (man) do not have an inaccessible meaning, a thread is possible just with pivots, terms and freestones. Thus, as the heap remains a crib, the conservatory of (F-Symphathies…sympathies-¦¦¦¦-S-repetition) is in no way prevented from having the value õ=1 for this reason.

Let us look for the chest (ñ) of (F-Sympathies…sympathies-¦¦¦¦-repetition) for the rail we examined above, with the supposition of a conservatory limited to 1. We will consider the new leaven for itself since it can, based on its own properties, have the value 1 or 2. The repetition of the decisive word at the beginning and the end of the poem is reinforced by the title «Correspondences» so it has to be admitted that there is a hardener which wipes out the internal distance between the two words “Sympathies-sympathies”. Since it therefore becomes pointless to count the series of fronts between the beginning and end of the poem, ñ=1 appears secure.

Let us consider the dresser (ã) of (N-¦¦¦¦-importance). The risk of having too extraneous a meaning as regards the sign in the glebe seems inexistent and so ã=1. On the other hand, (N-¦¦¦¦-divine nature) would obtain a different measurement as a capital letter does not give any certainty of such a quality. Care must therefore be taken to give a minimal commentary, to avoid causing any harm to the idea that everyone can form of the trope.

The glaze (ù) of (F-Correspondances/-¦¦¦¦-/S-Corps, responds, danse) (F-Correspondences/-/-/S- Body, respond, dance) is worth 2 as the assembly seems over-heavy. We would suspect the interpreter of wanting absolutely to put over an amusing idea at Baudelaire’s expense.

A rail can be imagined beginning “Nature is a temple where living pillars/Let at times an ample and strong tamarind/Stay in their shade, nursed and protected,/In the dark sun displayed, where slowly dry up/The springs…” The presence of a recovery (F-emple…ample-¦¦¦¦-S-repetition) is suspected, but the whole text shows that it could be a broken rime since afterwards we find the device of internal echo “ade- ayed”, with “shade…displayed”. The risk of a misunderstanding between the means of versification and the rep oblige us to accept a cartage of ò=2.

The boss (ì) of (F-fragrant perfumes-¦¦¦¦-S-repetition) is 2 for the segment “…fragrant perfumes and colours answer each other.” Such a form seems pleonastic using a certain abstraction, which forbids its access to the rep [356]. On the other hand “perfumed perfumes” could be fitted into the necessary frame here, through the actual repetition.

The varnish of (corrompus-¦¦¦¦-corps rompus) (corrompus-/-broken bodies), splitting the word «corrompus» (corrupt) to give two words meaning “broken bodies” (corps rompus), produces â=1 in the context «There are perfumes as cool…and others, corrupt…» The sense “ruined from inside” in the way metal rods are attacked by rust, should be investigated by using the knowledge of the neighbouring words, «triumphant» and «rich», but the business of a secret number is entirely different from this. It is a question of knowing whether the writer is using a special code or, on the contrary, is placing the same ideas before each reader, who will find them more or less accessible according to his or her level of culture. With a mixture of transparent, literal meanings and strange insinuations, the second possibility is acceptable, and because no key is available, â=1 is justified.

Let us examine the headroom of (F-man/temple: corrupt/cool-¦¦¦¦-S-two equal relations) for a rail beginning with “Nature has made it such that man is to its temple what corrupt perfumes are to cool ones…” The scholarly or scientific aspect remains too limited, so û=1.

The surround of (long-temps-¦¦¦¦-insistence) (long time-/-insistence), for «J'ai long-temps habité sous de vastes portiques…» (I lived for a long time under vast porticos…) must be set at 2 as the poet is just following the custom of the time by spelling «long-temps» (long time) with a hyphen [[1143]] in Index II (Poems)">[[1143]]. In 1861, on the contrary, Baudelaire uses «longtemps» (long time), conforming to changing usage [[1143]] in Index II (Poems)">[[1143]].

The combe of (F-confondent…répondent-¦¦¦¦-S-répondent…confondent) (F-mingle…answer-/-S- answer…mingle) would seem to have to be 2 if historical research were to reveal an entry in the diary of an absent-minded typographer, to the effect that he inverted the two words in lines 5 and 8. It seems advisable to restrict the manse if any bold play on words is reduced to a careless mistake. However closer examination reveals that such a proposition is untenable since the writer accepted the work after proofreading it, and even conserved it in 1861. This therefore justifies the leaven å=1.

Let us calculate complete manses, with first of all the one obtained for the basic casting (F- Correspondances/-¦¦¦¦-/S-Corps, responds, danse) (F-Correspondences/-/-/S-Body, respond, dance). It would seem unlikely that the public would envisage the relevant significance, authorizing a conservatory õ=2. A chest ñ=2 follows this first quantity. The dresser deserves to be ã=2 as the risk of not remaining true to the creator’s objectives is high. A division into “Corps, responds” is permissible because of the double “R” of the glebe, but the second one “responds, danse” cannot be justified, as a result of which the glaze is ù=2. A cartage ò=2 proves of use since the formulation of the theme is not at all suitable to that period, the anachronism betraying the mistaken interpreter [[1110]] in Index II (Poems)">[[1110]]. The play on words concerned appears sufficiently concrete to give a boss ì=1. As no previous information is needed to understand the joke, the varnish is â=1. No contribution to knowledge is given so the headroom has to be û=1. Custom can have had no influence on the use of the turn of phrase with the result that the surround is ô=1. As we have no knowledge of any accident, the combe å=1 has to be present. Thus a plausibility is established: 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â) (û)(ô)(å)=1/((2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/32.

We will now look at the manse of the high recovery (F-Correspondances…répondent-¦¦¦¦-S-repetition) (F-Correspondences…answer-/-S-repetition). As the heap stays the same, it remains a crib. No two words damage each other as they cross paths, nor is the thought merely for a very restricted circle of people. This means a conservatory õ=1 is appropriate. The chest has the value of ñ=1 because a hardener results from the decisive words situated at the head of the sonnet and at the end of the eighth line. No suspicion is possible in the rep because of “respond” being at the heart of «Correspondances» and this radical leads to a dresser ã=1. Since there is no awkwardness in the commentary, the glaze must be ù=1. The title does not have a fundamental part to play in the versification. Furthermore it seems that any careless mistakes by the author and omissions on the part of the interpreter can be ruled out. Anachronisms are not possible in this figure of speech as it stays close of public expectations of any work. Thus there can be no room for doubt over a cartage ò=1. We can write ì=1 for the boss, because the root “respond-répond”, which is used in the words «Correspondances» and «répondent» (Correspondences, answer), makes an undeniable practical basis for the figure of speech. We do not see any change with regard to the language code, so that the varnish â=1 is necessary. Since the trope hardly includes high knowledge, we obtain the headroom û=1. As the customs are not directly conducive to the turn of expression, we must admit a surround ô=1. Finally, a combe å=1 is justified because the text has been subject to no accidents. Thus the measurement we are looking for becomes 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(å)=1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/1=1. In short, the subject being studied appears to be significant and provides at least one means of gaining access to Baudelaire’s so strangely-organized mind.

Let us look at (P…A…R…F…U…M…C…O…N…V…E…R…S::E/-¦¦¦¦-/S-acrostic) (P…E…R… F…U…M…E…T…A…L…K…S/-/-/acrostic). We will consider the following lines: “Profonde est la nature,/Attirant est son verbe/ Ressurgi de piliers/Fameux par leurs regards.//Un écho inspiré,/Mâché dans le lointain/Correspond aux cinq sens,/Or et boue en dialogue.//Naissant dans la fraîcheur,/Versés dans le hautbois,/Emportés par l'ivresse,//Résolus ils se risquent/Sur la route du chant/Et de la corruption.” (Profound is nature/And alluring is its voice/Rising again from pillars/Renowned for their gaze.//An inspired echo,/Broken up in the distance/Corresponds to the five senses,/Gold and mud in dialogue.//Born in freshness,/Poured into the oboe,/Carried away by inebriety.//Resolute they dare to take/The road of song/And of corruption.) The joke made by taking the initials of words in the fourteen lines in the original French, and to be read vertically, although giving a second word, cannot prevent a thread being produced solely from the terms, pivots and freestones since “P…A…R…F…U…M…C…O…N…V…E…R…S…E” (P…E…R…F…U…M…E…T…A…L…K…S) forms a pivot. This amusing device concerns the public as a whole and the turn of phrase is sufficiently remarkable to give a conservatory õ=1. The very obvious acrostic generates its own hardener, thus leading to the chest ñ=1. The ceiling does not hide any misinterpretation of the glebe, so giving a dresser ã=1. Since it does not contain anything especially awkward, the secondary meaning provides enough to establish ù=1 as the value of the glaze. The verbal wordplay appears more like parasitical literary behaviour than a means of versification. There is no buffer to point to any hostility to the rep. A careless mistake seems to be ruled out. Taking these three points together gives us total confidence in a cartage ò=1. There is nothing abstract dominating this figure. The way the meaning is constructed is strange but not ambiguous. The boss (ì) is therefore set at 1. Since the knowledge of some key or a long period of learning is not necessary to understand it, our intuition goes for a varnish â=1. Since the verbal acrobatics concerned remain artistic, the value of the headroom must be û=1. In writing, an acrostic remains an exception, and therefore the surround amounts to ô=1. Since the trope does not arise from any accident or falsification, it has a combe å=1. Calculation and overall impression come together to produce the manse 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) (1)=1/1=1.

The plausibility of the basic subsidence (N-¦¦¦¦-importance) can be established for a conservatory õ=1. The thread is composed just of terms, pivots and freestones. As a detail in the first verse, the N of «Nature» will not be mentioned in the thread, but it does not prevent this thread from existing, and moreover the particular relief of the capital letter contributes to the effectiveness of the figure of speech. An obvious but fleeting character guarantees ñ=1 for the chest. The notion of “importance” in the ceiling sticks closely to the meaning of a capital N, so that the dresser must be ã=1. As this minimal commentary hardly shows up any clumsy remarks, the glaze is ù=1. The N cannot have been highlighted as a result of some careless mistake, nor is it a means of versification and so a cartage ò=1 is justified. Since the N is a material manifestation, the boss (ì) must be 1. The fact that this is an isolated capital letter means that there is no justification for the existence of any code parallel to that of normal communication, allowing us to note the value of the varnish to be â=1. The N sign does not contribute to any high knowledge and this justifies the headroom û=1. As the custom of writing «Nature» each time has not yet been invented, a surround of ô=1 is favoured. The critics have not shown N to be the result of any accident or falsification and so a level of å=1 is appropriate for the combe. All in all, our intuitions are backed by the figures: 1/(õ) (ñ))(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1.

Let us look at (F-est un temple/-¦¦¦¦-/S-estt un ttemple) (F-Nature is a temple/-/-/S-Natture is a ttemple). This gives us a way of reciting the first line, creating a solemn, rhythmical sound. This mass in no way limits the thread, which can be achieved with just freestones, pivots and terms as the words do not change. For the same reason there is no interference. The public will have no difficulty envisaging the trope since the phenomenon of a play on sounds has often been evoked. These considerations plead in favour of a conservatory of õ=1. The second ferment, that of the chest (ñ), keeps the value of 1 because the meaning of the tenures has an undeniable continuity. A dresser ã=2 is called for because the commentary is not backed by anything tangible as in French the verb ends with the normal letter ("T" in "est"). The glaze ù=1 seems to be indicated since no awkward mistake is felt in this ceiling. The energetic sound is not part of some rule of versification, and the absence of knowledge is not a trap for the interpreter who must make a judgement. As a careless mistake on the part of the creator must also be ruled out, the value of the cartage (ò) must be 1. The boss ì=1 easily establishes itself since such a clear-cut procedure remains outside the realms of abstraction and ambiguity. This obvious character also excludes any hidden system, which allows the varnish (â) to remain at 1. For the same reason the headroom (û) is also 1 because the conventions that assist knowledge seem very far from the hammered-out insistence perceived here. The surround ô=1 is justified by the fact that habitually we do not have recourse to this type of vocal insistence when reciting a sonnet. The critics have not shown the effect analysed as being the result of any accident and so the combe is å=1. Under these conditions the manse is 1/(õ)(ñ))(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)= ½.

In the first line of the heap, let us insert a diaeresis in the word «piliers» (pillars) in French, giving almost “pi-é” (fee-eet), so we can read “pieds” (feet) instead of «piliers» (pillars). The author would have started from the idea that the deep-seated architecture of the natural world can be compared to verse: “Nature is a poem where living feet…” The difficulty of making this notion understood would have led, via a series of shifts, to the present wording. The artist, passionate about his work, would have hoped the public would guess the original meaning through the resemblance of the words. As regards (F-piliers-¦¦¦¦-S-pieds) (F-pillars-/-S-feet) the conservatory õ=2 is justified by an unobvious significance. The same applies to the chest ñ=2. A dresser of ã=2 is useful in these conditions since the interpreter solicits the work to a maximum when venture is doubtful. The considerable clumsiness involved reaches a comic level in this feet business, which gives a glaze ù=2. On the other hand, the cartage remains ò=1 since nothing suspicious historically arouses any suspicions. As no physical modification has taken place, the change, although considerable, remains abstract, so a boss ì=2 is appropriate. The attempted play on words does not count as a secret message since its frame conserves the ordinary type of words, leading straight to the varnish â=1. We do not know how much knowledge would be gained in the rep and this gives a headroom (û) of 1. Since customs play no part in this fantasy, there can be no hesitation over a surround ô=1. The need to exclude any accidental action in this connection leaves us with a combe å=1. The situation gives the manse 1/(õ)(ñ)) (ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(1) (2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/32.

Let us measure the plausibility of (F-piliers…familiers-¦¦¦¦-S-linking of significance) (F-pillars… familiar-/-S-linking of significance), which is conceivable if the author was thinking of the generative symbol of the columns. In an unchanged text, there is no doubt concerning the crib. A conservatory (õ) of 2 is appropriate for a relationship between sounds which lacks the appearance of a figure of style. The versification gives us a hardener which guarantees a chest ñ=2. We physically associate the two rhyming sounds so that ã=1 seems correct, but the linking of meaning has been commented on, and this is a very different thing. Thus the ceiling goes too far and the result is a dresser ã=2. On the other hand, a glaze ù=1 is obviously right as there is nothing clumsy encumbering the commentary. Since one of the usual methods of poetics is used, the cartage can only be ò=2. Because of the concrete nature of the relationship between sounds, the boss (ì) is inevitably 1. We have difficulty imagining any key or special code, and so there can be no objection to the varnish â=1. The turn of phrase brings no extra knowledge and so the headroom is û=1. As the poet is using rhyme in the usual French fashion, the surround is appropriate at ô=2. We are unaware of any accident that could have caused the idea of a trope, so we have to accept a combe å=1. To sum up, the turn of phrase gives a manse of 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2) (2)=1/32.

The basic recovery (F-lars/Let-¦¦¦¦-lightness) is found in the crib of „Correspondences“: «Nature is a temple where living pillars
Let forth at times confused words…» However, the energy coming back into the voice as is usual at the beginning of a new line of verse, removes the repetitive nature of such a form. As a result, the public is not really prepared to see the intrusion and the conservatory goes up to the value of õ=2, which leads to the presence of a chest of ñ=2. The dresser has to be ã=2 as there is absolutely no evidence to lead us to declare that the author is evoking a certain lightness. The two arguments, that of the airy “L’s” and that of the heavy repetition can only balance each other out. There is nothing awkward in the ceiling and so the glaze is ù=1. Since some careless mistake could have caused the semblance of a turn of phrase, the cartage ò=2 is acceptable. As the phenomenon is perfectly concrete and provides nothing of an abstract nature, this leads us to a boss ì=1. There is no need to learn a special code or key to grasp the double sound “lars-let” and so â=1 for the varnish is easy to accept. The aim of acquiring knowledge is foreign to our present trope and so the headroom is set at û=1. The repetition of the “L” cannot be explained by any customary usage, giving a surround (ô) of 1. It is impossible to imagine that the figure came about by accident, justifying å=1 for the combe. The overall result is 1/(õ)(ñ))(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)= 1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/16.

The composite (F-Laissent parfois sortir de confuses paroles/-¦¦¦¦-/S-Laisssent parffois ssortir de conffuses paroles) ((F-Let forth at times confused words/-/-/S-Let forth at times conffussed wordss) allows us to imagine the murmur it describes. There are many basic recoveries, with the sounds “S” and “F”. They cannot prevent the thread being given through the pivots, terms or freestones. Furthermore, the context absorbs alliteration with difficulty. These arguments lead us to suppose the conservatory (õ) is equal to 1. With such a basis, the chest ñ=1 is justified as the verse has a great unity of intention. For the dresser, on the contrary ã=2 must be conceded since a lack of loyalty to the intentions of the creator seems possible, notably because of the sound “R”, in «sortir» (forth), which is prejudicial to the effect. The glaze ù=1 is not in doubt, in view of the amusing and simple nature of the play on sounds. This musical trope is not required by the versification, and in addition, it is hard to imagine Baudelaire as a scatterbrain composing in haste. These points allow us to fix the cartage at ò=1. The concrete nature of the figure means the boss has to be ì=1. There is no need for a different code to have access to the contents, leading to the varnish â=1. The noise effect suspected does not add to our knowledge and so the headroom must be û=1. Since custom has no part to play in the rep, the surround takes the value ô=1. A combe å=1 is justified because this diction has not been caused accidentally. A manse 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=½ is the result of this examination of values.

Let us look for the manse of the medium recovery (confuses…confondent-¦¦¦¦-underlining) (confused …mingle-/-underlining). Only the “conf” is repeated and this part of many words does not form a full word. The sonnet remains a crib, since nothing in it is changed after the trope has been noticed. As the two tenures are swamped by the context, the figure of speech appears to have been absorbed and so the conservatory õ=2 follows logically. The many breaks in expression in the course of lines 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not give any means of ensuring a unity of meaning and therefore, for (ñ), we must count the number of fronts between the two terms: “…de vivants piliers Laissent parfois sortir de confuses/////paroles; (L')homme y passe (à) travers (des) forêts (de) symboles Qui l'observent avec (des) regards familiers. Comme (de) longs échos (qui) (de) loin se/////confondent, Dans une ténébreuse et profonde unité…” (…living pillars Let forth at times confused words; There man passes through forests of symbols Which observe him with familiar eyes. Like long echoes which mingle in the distance, In a dark and profound unity…) The total of 18 gives a chest ñ=2+(1(18/10))=2+(1(1.8))=2+1.8=3.8. The ceiling cannot contain any errors, which gives a dresser ã=1. There is no clumsiness in the commentary with a resulting glaze ù=1. It is impossible for there to be any careless mistakes in the repetition in question here and so the cartage (ò) is equal to 1. The common radical prevents any suspicion of abstraction in linking “confuses-confondent” (confused-mingle) and so ì=1 is the proper score for the boss. It does not appear necessary to learn any key with such a concrete doublet so the varnish has to be â=1. No assistance to increased knowledge comes from the turn of phrase, giving a headroom of û=1. Customs are not significant here, justifying the surround (ô) of 1. As any accident is also impossible, the combe has the value of å=1. Our calculation will therefore give us the measurement of plausibility 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(3.8)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/7.6 or approximately ⅛.

Let us imagine behind «L'homme y passe» (There man passes), the meaning “pille la somme” (pillage the amount), since by simplifying the spelling we can change round the letters of “lomypas” (theremanpasses) to give the sounds “pylasom” (pillagetheamount). The sonnet would then call on poets to create their works using references to nature, each mind storing the marvels available but sharing out the booty strictly evenly, compensating good with evil, or one sensation with another. Since the verbal portion does not give any hint of this play on words (F-L'homme y passe-¦¦¦¦-S-pille la somme) (F-There man passes-/-S-pillage the amount), a conservatory of õ=2 is acceptable. A chest ñ=2 is obliged to follow this first attack on the plausibility. A dresser ã=2 is also de rigueur since the lack of loyalty to the meaning of the glebe threatens the ceiling. In the same way a glaze ù=2 results from the clumsiness of “…pille la somme à travers des forêts de symboles…” (…pillage the amount through forests of symbols…) A cartage (ò) of 2 is justified by the gratuitous nature of the trope and its concrete nature seems at first to allow ì=1. However, the physical change never comes about, meaning there has been speculation, giving us the boss ì=2. The lack of any special cipher permits the varnish â=1. No aid to understanding appears to be found in the imagined modification and so we can conclude the headroom is û=1. Since any habits or customs that could lead to this type of figure of speech are not known, the surround ô=1 is appropriate. Similarly the heap is not harmed by any chance encounter and so the combe (å) equals 1. The resulting manse is thus 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/64.

We can guess that the correct plausibility for (F-des forêts de symboles/-¦¦¦¦-/S-des faux rets de saints bols) (F-forests of symbols/-/-/S-illusory nets of saint bowls) will be close to that achieved for previous ones. Furthermore (F-There man passes through forests of symbols/-¦¦¦¦-/S-there symbols pass through forests of men) must also obtain a similar result. It would be preferable to look at (F-Which-¦¦¦¦-S- hesitation between “forests which” and “symbols which”), a rep from «…There man passes through forests of symbols
Which observe him with familiar eyes.» We do not know which log the grammatical game is from and so the conservatory is õ=2. A chest ñ=2 follows on from this, for this case of a sole tenure. The dresser ã=2 is justified because of the risk of a mistake, since a primarily evident significance links «symbols» and «which». Since nothing clumsy comes from the ceiling, the glaze ù=1 is appropriate. There is no possibility of any careless mistake so a cartage ò=1 seems necessary. As a result of the ambiguity of the construction, a boss ì=2 is suitable. The equivocal syntax cannot be at all confused with a special code so a varnish of â=1 seems reasonable. The headroom proves to be û=1 because of the lack of any contribution to knowledge from the turn of phrase. A surround ô=1 also suffices as customs have not been brought into play to give this figure of speech. A combe å=1 is also welcome due to a lack of any accident in the process leading to the imagined trope. The manse calculated is thus 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(2) (2)(2)(1)(1) (2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=2/(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/16.

The basic casting (F-symboles-¦¦¦¦-S-seins bols) (F-symbols-/-S-breasts bowls) would give the same type of result as others discussed previously, and we see that there are more important things to look at. We choose as a new subject the manipulation of the recovery (F-Comme de longs échos-¦¦¦¦-S-CComme de longs écchos) (F-Like long echoes-/-S-Likke long ecchoes). Going through the calculation, an obstacle is added through the supposition that Baudelaire, from his days in secondary school, had become part of the tradition of using the most vigorous spoken language. The heap remains a crib since in appearance nothing strictly has changed. The public has easy access to this trope. The alliteration cannot be absorbed by the context and so a conservatory õ=1 seems welcome. The chest (ñ) is 1 since it profits from the unity of meaning. As the commentary appears justified by the repeating of “co”, this gives a dresser ã=1. Since there is no awkwardness expressed in the ceiling, the glaze is ù=1. Regular poetic usages are not questioned in the glebe and so the cartage can be ò=1. As the material effect has some plausibility, a boss ì=1 is useful. Since the insistent nature of the turn of phrase does not hide any secrets, a varnish â=1 describes it and as it does not have any part in adding to knowledge, the headroom must be û=1. A surround ô=2 is necessary because of the custom invented here, apparently dear to the creator. A combe å=1 suffices as the doublet in sound cannot be explained by any accident. The plausibility is 1/õñãùòìâûôå =1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)=½.

We must now study the plausibility of a composite the tenures of which encompass a large part of the poem „Correspondences“: (Comme¹…comme¹…comme²…comme³…comme’¹…comme’²…Comme²/- ¦¦¦¦-/insistence) (Like¹…as¹…as²…as […as]…as³…as’¹…Like²/-/-/ insistence). As the heap has not been changed, it remains a crib. In a similar way, it seems accessible to the public in general, giving a conservatory õ=1. In the restricted frame of the verse, the repetition gives us a hardener, and it removes the space between the conjunctions with the resulting chest ñ=1. A dresser ã=1 seems unavoidable, the repetition having such an emphatic nature. The commentary in the ceiling is simply given, leading to a glaze ù=1. It is true that Baudelaire used identical words for stress in his work, but these are not in regular poetic usage, and so it seems fair to set the cartage at ò=1. The hammering out of «comme» (as) is too far from abstraction to give a value other than 1 to the boss (ì). There is no need to decipher any code to reveal the turn of phrase and so a varnish â=1 is acceptable. The fact that no instruction comes from this figure of speech means that there is no difficulty accepting the headroom û=1. The surround ô=1 is justified because customs cannot explain these many occurrences of the same word. A combe å=1 appears to characterize a form in which accident has had no part to play. The resulting value of the manse is thus 1/ôñãùòìûôâå=1/(1) (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/1=1.

The high juggling (F-confondent…répondent-¦¦¦¦-S-répondent…confondent) (F-mingle…answer-/-S- answer…mingle) allows us to imagine the possibility of inverting these very stable words. The context makes our approach to this idea far from urgent as the public has to deal with a considerable number of distinctly audacious views, giving a conservatory õ=2. As a result of the rhyme linking «confondent» (mingle) and «répondent» (answer) any space between the two words is eliminated by a hardener, giving a chest ñ=2. A dresser ã=2 is called for, because the play on words risks being illusory. On the other hand, a glaze ù=1 seems justified because of the simple nature of the interpretation. Although the two words have some connection, the strategy of exchange is not a usual method of versification and so the cartage is ò=1. The boss ì=2 proves necessary since the device conceived cannot hide its abstract nature. Since a striking modification is in no way a secret code, a varnish â=1 appears to be correct. We have difficulty seeing how any knowledge can be gained from the imagined turn of phrase, giving us a headroom û=1. Since customary usage cannot explain the permutation, the surround (ô) must have the value of 1. As the poem runs no risk of being subject to an accident, a combe å=1 is acceptable. In this way the manse can be calculated as 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/16.

Let us examine the basic recovery (F-confondent/Dans-¦¦¦¦-S-confondd/DDans) (F-mingle/in-/-S- minggll/inn) with a change of historical situation. Let us suppose that a manuscript by the author exists, including this note: “Publish -including the alliterations!” The rep does not achieve certainty since the beginning of the sixth line, stressed by an effort of pronunciation, erases the figure of speech, giving a conservatory õ=2. The chest then takes the value ñ=2. A dresser ã=1 is justified by the alleged document. There is no serious argument concerning the dexterity or clumsiness of the pronunciation of “ddDD”, leading us to set the glaze at ù=1. We have to accept the cartage will be ò=1 since the author seems to favour the trope and as this trope appears highly concrete, a boss ì=1 is easily acceptable. The public has no need to look for any special key or change any linguistic code to understand the poem and so a varnish â=1 seems satisfactory. As this device does not add to our sum of knowledge the headroom û=1 is appropriate. The creator is acting of his own free will and not following any customs, judging by the note discovered, indicating the surround (ô) must be 1. A combe å=1 is the logical conclusion of this evidence of resolution. Overall therefore the manse is 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)=¼.

We will now imagine that the writer implied in the fifth line “Comme des écoles qui de loin se confondent…” [with «long echoes» being replaced by “schools” (des écoles) in «Like long echoes which mingle in the distance…»]. The conservatory of (F-échos-¦¦¦¦-S-écoles) (F-echoes-/-schools) has a heap which remains accessible with the literal meaning. Nevertheless it does not seem the public would be prepared for such an alteration, justifying õ=2. For a trope with only one tenure, a chest ñ=2 is the immediate consequence of the value õ=2. The uncertainty concerning the intentions of the poet leads to a dresser ã=2. To go from «de longs échos» (long echoes) to “des écoles” (schools) changes the pronunciation in an awkward way, giving a glaze ù=2. The cartage ò=1 appears to be in no doubt as there has been no anachronism. On the other hand, excessive abstraction in the intellectual drift forces us to accept a boss (ì) of 2. Changing a word cannot easily be considered to be a sort of secret code and so the varnish is â=1. The headroom (û) is 1 because of the absence of any assistance to knowledge in the suspected figure of speech. It proves useful to have recourse to a surround ô=1 because we know of no customs relevant to the type of trope imagined. Finally the combe (å) is 1 because no accident is involved in causing the rep. The resulting manse is negligible: 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2) (2)(2)(2)=1/32.

Let us establish the recovery (F-Vast-¦¦¦¦-S-Vaast) which comes down to conceiving the exclamation “Ah!” in the seventh line. Let us also imagine that all the copies of the poem contain hundreds of black marks, all over the place, as if things had been underlined here and there, one line being under the “A” of «Vast». The person interpreting the poem can envisage saying “Vaast” but cannot tell whether the strange presentation comes from the creator or was produced accidentally by a careless printer. As the heap is not a crib as a result of this situation, a conservatory õ=2 is necessary. The chest (ñ) is then inevitably equal to 2, for a single tenure, by definition in continuity with itself. A dresser ã=2 is appropriate as the risk of making a mistake over the meaning dominates. There is no awkwardness to be seen in the ceiling “Vaast” and so the glaze (ù) is worth 1. As the critics can see that they lack the necessary knowledge to understand the meaning of the glebe, the cartage ò=2 is opportune. The marks which physically spoil the paper lead to a boss ì=1. As there is no indication of any key, we must accept a varnish â=1. With no increase in knowledge coming from this trope, the headroom must be set at û=1. Custom could not have produced this result so the surround (ô) must have the value of 1. The likely accident justifies the combe å=2. Thus we have a manse of 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/32.

Let us examine the trope (F-sounds answer each other-¦¦¦¦-S-ssounds answer each other). We will change the initial situation to have the opportunity of focusing more clearly on certain leavens, and we will conceive a buffer for this, certifying that the writer was against any stressed way of pronouncing the sonnet. Let us also envisage a letter from the author expressing his regret at having allowed “sounds” to be left instead of “noises”, because of an absent-minded typographer. The imagined figure, based on the accentuated consonants, does not lead to any linguistic blurring, nor does it introduces into the heap a message to which it is difficult to gain access. It does not change the status of the crib at all, which invites us to declare a conservatory of õ=1. The chest ñ=1 is indispensible since the eighth line benefits from the continuity of significance. As the new document induces us to consider the ceiling as illusory, the dresser has the value ã=2. Nevertheless, as this commentary contains no awkwardness, a glaze ù=1 must be accepted. The artist’s confidence leads to a cartage ò=2. The pronunciation indicates a concrete figure of speech, favouring a boss ì=1. Articulating in an insistent way cannot be seen as a key and so the varnish (â) is 1. As we do not know of any knowledge benefiting directly from the figure, we can admit the headroom û=1. A surround ô=1 is easily justified, because the buffers do not really promote the idea that the customs are of much importance here. The accident pointed out by the poet directs us to a combe (å) of 2. Overall this play on sounds gives a manse 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(1)(1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)=1/(2)(2)(2)=⅛.

Let us imagine the following dialogue at the beginning of a piece of writing that appeared to have preceded „Correspondences“ by a few months: “"You address the Perfumes, colours and sounds but do they respond to you?" "Even if they cannot speak, their weights respond to each other, luckily for my nerve…"” A note crosses out the document: “to be altered”. The high recovery (F-respond…respond-¦¦¦¦-S- answer…balance) is part of a rail, the thread of which, by means of pivots, terms and freestones, is certain. Similarly, a clear meaning is expressed in the short exchange of words. These points lead to a conservatory õ=1. The two parts of the glebe are far apart but a logical connection comes from one reply to the other, leading to a chest ñ=1. As the ceiling is reasonable, the dresser is ã=1. To accuse the commentary of being clumsy could only be the result of a failure to see clearly and so a glaze ù=1 is appropriate. A strong suspicion gives a cartage ò=2 because of the note left by the author. The boss must be ì=2 as the rep needs the abstraction to provide a contrast to serve as its basis. Since the alteration of meaning cannot be seen as a special code, the varnish is â=1. This figure of speech is not backed by any knowledge and so a headroom (û) of 1 is sufficient. Custom does not lead directly to this literary game, promoting a surround ô=1. The result is unaffected by any accident, justifying a combe å=1. Under these conditions the manse is appropriately 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)=¼.

The composite of basic castings (Il est/-¦¦¦¦-/Y lait) (There are/-/-/There milk) starts from «Il est» (There are), takes the “L” from the “I” (There) and puts this “L” with «est» (generally "is", but in this case "are") to give “Y lait” (There milk). We can easily see that the plausibility will be similar to that obtained with previous cases. A second possibility would be to take the meaning “île est des parfums frais…” (Island is cool perfumes…) This would lead us to consider purity as an island, or as a clearing in a forest, in the midst of a world that had become considerably less primitive and innocent. As the value of plausibility of this rep is of the same type as in previous cases, let us rather examine (Il est/-¦¦¦¦-/Id est) (There are/-/-/Id est) [864]. The ninth line would add an element to the meaning of the eighth: “…les parfums¹, les couleurs et les sons se répondent. Id est des parfums² frais…et d'autres, corrompus…” (…Perfumes, colours and sounds answer each other. Id est perfumes as cool…and others, corrupt…) The audience would not be likely to imagine this and so there is no doubt over the value of the conservatory, õ=2. The chest ñ=2 follows from this. A dresser ã=2 is justified by the risk of inaccuracy. The passage from “L” to “D” can be seen as awkward and so the glaze is ù=2. The risk of falling into anachronism, from the use of the Latin expression “Id est” in a French poem in 1857, gives as a cartage ò=2. The relationship between «Il est» (There is) and “Id est” requires speculation on a high level and thus the boss (ì) will be 2. Although the words are Latin, the meaning would be clear and therefore the varnish is â=1. “Id est” brings no extra knowledge and so the headroom is û=1. As custom has no part to play in the turn of phrase, the surround is accepted to be ô=1. A combe of å=1 is inevitable since there are no accidents involved in this figure of speech. All in all the measurement of plausibility is 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/64.

In considering the high juggling (F-cool…Sweet-¦¦¦¦-S-sweet…Cool) we can imagine the underlying theme “There are perfumes as sweet as the flesh of children, Cool as oboes, green as meadows…” The poet would appear to have avoided the risk of being accused of weakness in his love of children, using the exchange of epithets to this end but letting his intention be guessed at through the logic of “Sweet-touch”. The conservatory õ=2 is justified in this context which absorbs the figure of speech, erasing it or making it inexistent. With õ=2 and the continuity of discourse, the chest (ñ) has the value of 2. A dresser ã=2 is necessary as the risks of attributing to the creator intentions alien to his point of view seem considerable. Due to a certain surface dexterity in the interpretation, a glaze ù=1 proves useful. As the aim does not affect the versification, a cartage ò=1 is sufficient. Unfortunately a boss (ì) of 2 threatens to make the result founder in view of the abstract nature of the play on the delicacy of meanings. As the change of places is not elaborate enough to be a key, a varnish â=1 is appropriate. Any knowledge gained is insufficient to enable us to accept a headroom other than û=1. As custom is not involved, the surround must be ô=1. No accident is plausible and so the combe (å) will be 1. The result is thus 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1) (1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/16.

We will now calculate the plausibility of (F-parfums frais/-¦¦¦¦-/S-parffums ffrais) (F-fresh perfumes/-/-/S-ffresh perffumes). To vary a situation which would give results similar to those of the tropes already examined, we will introduce some imaginary circumstances. We will suppose there is a document with the sonnet „Correspondences“ and the note “It is indeed a question of science here and in every line. I have just objected to good old Asselineau who wanted to exclude the use of suggestive sounds.” Equally, we can invent a tradition in which the alliterations were stressed when reading, in Baudelaire’s time, in aesthetic French society. In view of the “F”, the conservatory of õ=1 is suitable. Since there is continuity at the beginning of the verse, the chest ñ=1 just follows the momentum. As the writer accepts this stressed pronunciation, we may have recourse to a dresser ã=1. As there is no clumsiness because the way of thinking has taken its strength from the artistic milieu, a glaze ù=1 is necessary. The fictional character of the document means a cartage ò=1 must be accepted. Because of the dominant concrete character of the turn of phrase, the boss is ì=1. The reader of the time needs to be told of no secret to have access to the figure of speech and so a varnish â=1 is correct. Owing to the writer’s note on the work’s addition to knowledge, û=2 seems desirable at first. However, in this case the author is calling philosophy or poetic art “science”. The effect analysed does not make a contribution to knowledge as it is usually known and so it is better to choose û=1 for the headroom. A surround ô=2 is adapted to the circumstances of the fashion for forced diction. For a text that has not been subject to any physical accident, a combe å=1 appears suitable. The rep envisaged thus earns a manse 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)=1/(2)=½.

As «chairs d'enfants» (flesh of children) resembles “chers enfants” (dear children), again we can imagine a trope leading a reader anxious to rediscover an older, less certain version of the poem: “There are perfumes as cool as dear children…” The plausibility to be measured concerns (F-chairs d'enfants-¦¦¦¦-S- chers enfants) (F-flesh of children-/-dear children). The rest of the heap does not reveal the hidden meaning to any great extent and so absorbs the content, giving a conservatory õ=2. A chest ñ=2 is required for the same reason. The dresser has the value ã=2 because of the possibility of misunderstanding the glebe. The substitution notably of the sound “Z” for “D” is awkward and so the glaze (ù) is 2. The cartage ò=1 is justified by the historically possible nature of the play on words. The concrete aspect of the lines has not been changed and so the resemblance is a question of abstract speculation, meaning a boss ì=2 proves useful. The critic is aware of no special key and so a varnish â=1 must be accepted. As the figure of speech makes no contribution to knowledge, the headroom is û=1. No habitual usage encourages the meaning obtained, so the only reasonable level for the surround (ô) is 1. A combe å=1 describes well our unawareness of any accident that may have influenced the supposed rep. The manse of (F-chairs d'enfants-¦¦¦¦-S-chers enfants) (F-flesh of children-/-dear children) is therefore calculated to be 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1) (1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/32.

Let us imagine a manuscript by Baudelaire with just: “Doux Ξ¤☼ 000 verts Ξ¤≈” (Sweet Ξ¤☼ 000 green Ξ¤≈). We will look for the manse of (F-Ξ¤☼…Ξ¤≈/-¦¦¦¦-/S-comme les hautbois…comme les prairies) (F-Ξ¤☼…Ξ¤≈/-/-/S-as oboes…as meadows). All these obscure signs together prevent it having the status of a crib, giving a conservatory of 2, followed by a chest ñ=2+(1(2/10))=2+(1(0.2))=2.2 because of «verts» (green) in between the tenures. A dresser ã=2 is needed as well since the ceiling suggests a doubtful parallel with the sonnet „Correspondences“, which was perhaps written after or before the heap and not at the time of its origin. As the commentary is skilful, recourse to a glaze ù=1 is necessary. A cartage ò=2 is welcome as we are lacking in information to interpret the situation. No suspicious element is contributed by the boss ì=1 since the massive visual effect has an undeniably concrete weight. The varnish â=2 is handy, through the feeling it gives of a special code. As the glebe appears whimsical, not learned, a headroom û=1 seems required. Since no custom leads to such a comical result, we can also accept a surround ô=1. Since the critics do not mention any falsification, error or accident, the combe (å) must be 1. We must therefore conclude for this trope a plausibility of 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2.2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2.2)(2)(2)(2)= 1/35.2.

The supposition of a rep “…doux comme les hauts bois…” (…sweet as the high woods…) allows us to measure the plausibility of (F-hautbois-¦¦¦¦-S-hauts bois) (F-oboes-/-S-high woods). As the heap easily allows the imagined meaning to go unnoticed, the conservatory takes the value õ=2. The chest conforms to this determination, assuming the level ñ=2. In the same way, the dresser expresses the weakness of the supposition through ã=2. On the other hand the glaze (ù) must be equal to 1 as there is no clumsiness marking the commentary on the ceiling. As nothing anachronistic comes to light, the cartage is appropriate at ò=1. While the presentation remains the same, obtaining two words from one is an abstract manoeuvre, and so the figure is correctly depicted in a boss of ì=2. A play on words cannot have the status of a key and so the varnish is â=1. The headroom is û=1 for a glebe which is not responsible for any instruction. The surround ô=1 is justified with a trope which owes nothing to customary usage. The combe å=1 measures the complete independence of the turn of phrase from any possible accident. From there comes the manse 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/16.

We will now suppose that at some future moment only a single page of the anthology "the Flowers of evil" remains in existence but luckily this page contains „Correspondences“. We go on to imagine an unexplained but noticeable green stain on the word “green” in the first tercet. After consulting various works, we doubt that this colour could have been put at this particular place on the paper on purpose and so examine the manse of (F-green stain on "green"-¦¦¦¦-S-insistence). The thread requires no reference to a phenomenon that appears to have resulted from some unlucky action and so the conservatory õ=1 appears favourably. The chest ñ=1 expressed the reduced extent of this problematical stain. A dresser ã=2 seems welcome as the risk of error in the ceiling is high. A glaze (ù) of 1 is admissible because the commentary is skilfully based on appearances. Conversely a cartage ò=2 is necessary in view of the fact that the critics are hampered by a lack of knowledge. The turn of phrase has the necessary physical aspect to give a boss ì=1. There is no debate regarding any special code as the trope looks like an ornament or maculation and so the varnish is â=1. As there is no question of knowledge in the glebe, a headroom û=1 is justified. Inventing some custom or habit would be unacceptable, meaning the best result for the surround (ô) is 1. The accident that may have occurred makes a combe å=2 appropriate. Under these conditions the plausibility can be measured as 1/(õ)(ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(1)(1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)=1/(2)(2)(2)=⅛.

The turn of phrase (F-prairies-¦¦¦¦-S-prés rient) (F-meadows-/-S-pastures laugh), with the French word for meadows split to form “pastures laugh”, has a plausibility which has already been shown by other figures of speech. We will therefore look at an imaginary situation in order to refine our calculation methods further. One day in the distant future, a single copy of verses resembling those of „Correspondences“ is found which contains a highly learned, encyclopaedic discourse, but where one syllable is missing. Instead of «…Sweet as oboes, green as meadows…» the tenth line contains the words “…receptive as mirrors and pi…” We assume a trope (F-pi-¦¦¦¦-S-pistils) and on investigating the verses which have resisted the passage of time, we can see the risk if the public is a reduced one of amateurs but skilled in art and science, the phenomenon of the literary coterie, which means the conservatory will be set at õ=2. The chest ñ=2 conforms to this value. The risks of making a mistake in the meaning of the commentary give a dresser ã=2. As the ceiling is not clumsy in any way, a glaze ù=1 seems acceptable. Because the knowledge is fragmentary, it is prudent to count the cartage as ò=2. As the incomplete word produces a concrete effect, we have to accept a boss ì=1. No special code seems to have been used and so the varnish must be â=1. Owing to the other lines, the headroom has to be û=2. We are unaware of any customs that might have produced this figure of speech which gives us a surround ô=1. The likely accident that has harmed the physical signs of the heap means the combe is å=2. The manse gathers these figures together to give 1/(õ) (ñ)(ã)(ù)(ò)(ì)(â)(û)(ô)(å)=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(2)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/64.

Let us look for the plausibility of (F-hyphen in the eleventh line-¦¦¦¦-S-separation) which delimits the part of the poem in which the main direction of ideas changes: «There are perfumes as cool…-And others, corrupt…» A conservatory of õ=2 seems to describe the case correctly since this mark of a freestone, belonging to usual ways of writing, is absorbed by the sonnet and so cannot lead to an intrusion. The chest ñ=2 is susceptible to this first limitation. With a ceiling that remains discrete, a dresser ã=1 suffices. We can sense no clumsiness in the commentary and so we obtain a glaze ù=1. Since regular poetic methods are not in question, a cartage ò=1 is justified. For such a concrete punctuation mark, a boss of ì=1 is appropriate. Baudelaire uses no special code, necessitating a varnish â=1. The headroom û=2 is useful in view of the role of the written symbol in the division of ideas. The surround ô=2 comes from the artist’s tendency to use hyphens frequently. The figure of speech appears unaffected by accidents with a resulting combe å=1. These values give a manse of 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(2)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2) (2)=1/16.

The expression (F-corrompus-¦¦¦¦-S-corps rompus), splitting «corrompus» (corrupt) into two words “corps rompus” meaning “broken bodies” (F-corrupt-/-S-broken bodies), would give a manse similar to those already calculated for other imagined verbal distortions. It is therefore more useful to alter the basic situation. We will invent the situation in which a manuscript of „Correspondences“ exists bearing the words “bodies chemically broken”, thus rearranging the context of the trope. The conservatory õ=2 transcribes the fact that for the public the literary play on words goes unnoticed as the apparent meaning suffices. This negative effect immediately translates into a chest ñ=2. The note discovered gives a dresser ã=1 as the risk of disloyalty to the creator’s intentions is thus lessened. No awkwardness remains as the doubling of the “R” allows, in this particular case, a slight pause, the equivalent of the one that separates the words as they are spoken, and so this leads to a glaze ù=1. The cartage ò=1 is considerably favoured by the new document. The internal break in “corrompus” seems at first sufficiently concrete to leave no room for doubt over ì=1, but this is just an illusion because the stop in the middle of the word is merely possible, not absolutely necessary. As an abstraction decides that one word must give two, the boss is ì=2. The critics are aware of no special code having been devised here and so the varnish â=1 is appropriate. The writer’s remark, found through erudition, raises the question of a scientific content in the turn of phrase, and so û=2 becomes the object of discussion. However, nothing really scientific appears here and the fictional author expresses himself sparingly since the rest of the sonnet remains untouched. The result is that a headroom û=1 best describes the situation. As no custom has any role in the figure, the surround ô=1 is favoured. The word “corrompus” (corrupt) has not come about by accident, justifying a combe å=1. By these leavens, the plausibility value reaches 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=⅛.

Because of the notion of balance which is undeniable in “répondre” (to answer, respond), it would be a good idea to examine (F-Corr…corr-¦¦¦¦-S-insistence). From the title «Correspondences» to line 11, where the word «corrupt» is found, the distance seems too great for the link to be evident. As a result the conservatory should be õ=2, the context making the turn of phrase invisible. A chest ñ=2+(1(56/10))=2+ (56/10)=2+5.6=7.6 is necessary as the poem contains 56 fronts between the two syllables: “Nature, est, temple, où, vivants, piliers, Laissent, parfois, sortir, confuses, paroles, homme, y, passe, travers, forêts, symboles, Qui, l', observent, avec, regards, familiers, Comme, longs, échos, loin, se, confondent, Dans, ténébreuse, profonde, unité, Vaste, comme, nuit, et, clarté, parfums, couleurs, sons, se, répondent, est, parfums, frais, comme, chairs, enfants, Doux, comme, hautbois, verts, comme, prairies, autres” (Nature, is, temple, where, living, pillars, let, times, forth, confused, words, man, there, passes, through, forests, symbols, which, him, observe, with, eyes, familiar, Like, long, echoes, distance, mingle [together], In, dark, profound, unity, Vast, as, night, and, light, Perfumes, colours, sounds, each, other, answer, are, perfumes, cool, as, flesh, children, Sweet, as, oboes, green, as, meadows, others). The dresser, because of the risk of inventing the connection, has a value of ã=2. On the other hand the glaze ù=1 is convincing as no clumsiness has been committed. Since the author could have missed this repetition of the “corr” sound, a cartage ò=2 is appropriate. With such a concrete link, the boss (ì) is worth 1. No new code is needed to obtain an idea and so the varnish (â) is 1. Since there is no addition to knowledge from this linking of sounds, a headroom û=1 is justified. As habits have no role to play in the glebe, a surround ô=1 is acceptable. There is no accident related to this repetition and so the combe å=1 is not in doubt. Finally the manse has the value 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(7.6)(2)(1)((2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(7.6)(2)(2)=1/60.8

We can imagine Baudelaire’s poem used to transmit a secret message. The soldier receiving these lines must find in them a word with the symmetry “vowel¹-consonant¹-consonant¹-vowel¹” and then interpret it as an order. The spy finds «corrompus» with “orro” and he rapidly comprehends that his mission is to corrupt the individual he had been following up to then. We must now estimate the plausibility of (F-orro-¦¦¦¦- S-corrupt). The importance attached to “orro” is here the effect of the idea that wants to convey a very small circle of people, those involved in fraudulent political action and this gives us a conservatory õ=2. For a single tenure, the immediate consequence of a chest ñ=2 is timely. As the significance Baudelaire intended is set aside once the coding is used, there appears to be a total lack of loyalty and so the dresser is ã=2. There is no awkwardness, indeed far from it, in this matter, meaning a glaze ù=1 is appropriate in this case. As Baudelaire actually uses the symmetry “orro”, the cartage has a value ò=1. The physical presence of “orro” seems at first glance to require the boss ì=1. But the abstract instruction given to the interpretation of the message eventually forces us to accept ì=2. The existence of a key allowing access to the ceiling gives us the varnish â=2. As the glebe has nothing technical about it, it justifies the headroom û=1. In the secret use of the symmetry “orro” no usual habit of the poet is involved, leading to a surround ô=1. A combe of å=1 is sufficient as the critics know of no accident to which the poem was directly subject. The quantity of the manse resulting from all this is 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/32.

Breaking down neighbouring words in lines 11 and 12 makes us pay attention and so let us measure (F-triumphant…expansion/-¦¦¦¦-/S-tri-umphant…expansi-on). As with poetic licence the heap can integrate the diaerisis, we would have õ=2 as the public would only understand in these analyses of vowels such a device as could be expected in a sonnet. However, the procedure takes place in a persistent way in adjoining lines not just as a result of normal versification, justifying on the contrary a conservatory (õ) of 1. From this the chest will be ñ=1 since «triumphant» and «expansion» give us a strong impression of solidarity: «Il est des parfums frais…Et d'autres, corrompus, riches et triomphants,

Ayant l'expansion des choses infinies…» (There are perfumes as cool…And others, corrupt, rich and triumphant,//Having the expansion of infinite things…) The dresser will have the value ã=1 from the obvious interpretation. Apparently ò=2 is appropriate as the creator is seeking to obtain the number of syllables necessary for Alexandrines, but if we consider the affair more closely, he did not need to repeat this in two consecutive lines, and so the cartage has the value 1. The physical break in the words gives a boss ì=1. The varnish (â) is 1 as we cannot see any special code that should be learnt here, beyond the artistic codes. As far as knowledge is concerned, the so-called rep does not play a decisive role, even as regards the diphthongs “i- um” and “i-on”, giving a headroom û=1. Superficially, poetic usage seems to mark the trope, so ô=2 would be necessary. However, custom does not encourage any double separation in vowel pronunciation, meaning the surround should rather be 1. As no accident is known of, a combe å=1 is justified. The manse assembles these data to give 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/1=1.

The twelfth line «…Having the expansion of infinite things…» can be interpreted “…having the infinite expansion of infinitesimal things…” In this case we have a near repetition of an identical word with two different significances [823]. The rep would be (F-infinite-¦¦¦¦-S-infinite…infinitesimal). As the context absorbs the figure of speech, õ=2 is justified for the conservatory. The chest ñ=2 comes from the tightening up of the expression. A dresser ã=2 is deserved because of the risks of interpretation. There is no clumsiness about the commentary and so the glaze is acceptable at ù=1. On a historical level, it is hard to contest the possibility of the trope and so a cartage ò=1 seems reasonable. A change of place along with some abstraction becomes necessary and therefore the boss ì=2 is appropriate. Since no coding is required, a varnish â=1 seems sensible. In spite of the use of a word important for science, a headroom û=1 remains suitable as religious or satanic views dominate the sonnet. Some aesthetic habits of the time as regards the literary theme of infinity would have to be known to oppose a surround ô=1. The level of the combe at å=1 is assured because we are aware of no accident involved. The measurement of plausibility is thus 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/16.

The trope “…l'ammmbre, le musc, le bennnjoin et l'ennncens…” (…ammmber, musk, bennnzoin and innncense…) resembles certain other alliterations we have already measured. The play on words in which “en sang” (in blood) is read for «encens» (incense), pronounced the same, seems also likely to be calculated at a similar level as other such turns of phrase. A rep less like problems previously envisaged is found in the use of «which» three times. This is shown as (F-Qui…qui…Qui-¦¦¦¦-S-grouping of things concerned by these three occurrences) (which…which…which-/-grouping of things concerned by these three occurrences). The author’s aim would have been to unify his perspective as regards several natural elements considered as symbols. This field covers a large part of the text: «Qui…observent…qui…se confondent…Qui chantent…» (Which observe…which mingle…Which sing…) The conservatory has the value õ=2 by the context in which the almost imperceptible figure of speech appears. For the chest, the tenures which are the furthest apart are the two «Qui» (which-es) and the space can be counted as n=50, for the fronts: “l', observent, avec, regards, familiers, Comme, longs, échos, loin, se, confondent, Dans, ténébreuse, profonde, unité, Vaste, comme, nuit, et, clarté, parfums, couleurs, sons, se, répondent, est, parfums, frais, comme, chairs, enfants, Doux, comme, hautbois, verts, comme, prairies, autres, corrompus, riches, triomphants, Ayant, expansion, choses, infinies, Comme, ambre, musc, benjoin, encens” (him, observe, with, eyes, familiar, Like, long echoes, distance, together, mingle, In, dark, profound, unity, Vast, as, night, and, light, Perfumes, colours, sounds, other, answer, are, perfumes, cool, as, flesh, children, Sweet, as, oboes, green, as, meadows, others, corrupt, rich, triumphant, Having, expansion, things, infinite, Like, amber, musk, benzoin, incense). The total gives a chest ñ=2+(1(50/10))=2+(1(5))=2+5=7. As the ceiling is more than audacious, the dresser must be ã=2. Of course, the interpretation is not particularly plausible, but is very clever, giving therefore a glaze ù=1. The creator may have just not noticed this repetition of «qui» (which) in the poem as the relative pronoun is so common and this justifies the cartage ò=2. There is considerable abstraction in the supposition of the rep, leading to a boss ì=2. The ordinary syntax being by definition incapable of any hidden codes, â=1 is the correct value for the varnish. No knowledge is produced and so the situation is adequately described by a headroom û=1. Grammatical usage cannot be confused with Baudelaire’s usual habits so a surround ô=1 is accepted. Any accident is ruled out and so the combe must be å=1. The manse is thus 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(7)(2)(1)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)= 1/(2)(7)(2)(2)(2)=1/112.

The end of the sonnet resembles “…qui chantent l'étrange sort de l'esprit et des sens.” (…which sings of the strange fate of the spirit and the senses.) However, certain modifications of the text analysed previously, give manses close to what we could expect to get here. Similarly we have made many calculations resembling the one we could use for “…les transes, ports de laits pris et des sangs.” (…trances, ports of milk taken and of bloods.) New ideas are now rare concerning “…comme l'ambre, le musc, le benjoin, -et l'encens qui chante les transports de l'esprit et descend.” (…like amber, musk, benzoin -and incense, which sings of the transports of the mind and descends.) Here the last two words of the sonnet, «des sens» (the senses) become one, pronounced the same: “descend”. More attention will be paid to the impropriety tolerated in the last lines, concerning the words «encens» (incense) and «sens» (senses), because the ending of the former should correctly be pronounced without sounding the “S” while in the latter the final “S” is heard [425]. Corneille supplies a model [213]: «Mais j'ai trop fait d'injure à nos Dieux tout- puissants:
Choisis de leur donner ton sang, ou de l'encens.» (But I have insulted our all-powerful Gods too much:/Choose to give them your blood or incense.) Baudelaire may have wanted to suggest that analogies are never correctly seen by human beings, symbolizing this approximation through an imperfect vocal correspondence. The description (F-encens…sens-¦¦¦¦-S-discrepancy) (F-incense…senses-/-S-discrepancy) allows a minimum commentary on the rep in question. On top of the poetic license there is the common pronunciation, however incorrect, in which the final “S” of «encens» (incense) is sounded, giving a turn of phrase which does not shock, which deserves a conservatory õ=2. The rhyme provides a hardener as the public goes from one word to the other by this means, as if there existed a continuity uniting the two, and so the chest is ñ=2. The risk of interpreting the glebe badly makes a dresser ã=2 appropriate. There is no clumsiness in the ceiling, meaning a glaze ù=1 is fair. Since the creator seems to have used a special type of versification, the cartage ò=2 is necessary. The essential element in the presence of the “S” is physical so the boss has to be ì=1. As a key is of no use, we have a varnish â=1. As there is no knowledge imparted beyond the poetic, the headroom û=1 suits the case. The custom of men of letters to add a consonant at a decisive point encourages the surround ô=2. No accident has happened so the combe is å=1. The plausibility is calculated as 1/õñãùòìâûôå=1/(2)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)=1/(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)=1/32.