Plausibility, measured
An interactive tool built from the English edition of Meaning and Distance by Michel Magnen — translated by Fay Guerry — and applied first to Baudelaire's Correspondences.
Let forth at times confused words;
There man passes through forests of symbols
Which observe him with familiar eyes.
In a dark and profound unity,
Vast as the night and as the light,
Perfumes, colours and sounds answer each other.
Sweet as oboes, green as meadows,
— And others, corrupt, rich and triumphant,
Like amber, musk, benzoin and incense,
Which sing of the transports of the mind and the senses.
§1From word to paradox
Michel Magnen's book opens on two intuitions. First: a substantial distance between the words of a single discourse, in the absence of any formal link from one to the other, erases the relations of meaning between them. Second: if two clashes of meaning, fundamentally close, are put forward in the same discourse — one presented forcefully while the other is just outlined — the more vigorously conveyed one lends the second one increased force.
From these two ideas the author develops a rigorous measurement system — borrowed in spirit from the calculus of probabilities, though distinct from it — which makes it possible to evaluate, for each juxtaposition of meaning in a text, its strength and its plausibility. This application unfolds these notions step by step and lets you compute them yourself.
To analyse a text, Magnen first establishes elementary objects of extreme precision. Each receives a strict definition that isolates exactly what is being spoken of — and what must be avoided to prevent confusion.
A case is an isolated word given at a precise location in the text. Whenever the same word recurs elsewhere, that recurrence forms a new case.
perfumes¹ and perfumes², even though their meanings are nearly identical.A buffer consists of a tenacious appearance which can be used in order to understand a text. There are three kinds: ideas (a certain definition), rules (an indisputable rule of grammar), and objects (a real thing described by the text, the observation of which helps to understand it).
An oddity is a significance which provokes an astonishment impossible to overcome by any reference to a buffer.
An arbitration is the elementary decision: is it preferable to bring together (written b) or to separate (written d) two cases of the text? The order of the terms is unimportant: b(Nature–temple) and b(temple–Nature) state strictly the same thing — which is what distinguishes an arbitration from an ordinary attribution.
b(Nature–temple) = “to understand Baudelaire, it is better to bring together ‘Nature’ and ‘temple’ than to oppose them”.A tension consists of a pointer made to describe an oddity — an irreducible arbitration. It is written with an initial r to single it out.
rb(corrupt–incense) — incense is traditionally pure (the priests who use it adopt that view), so calling it “corrupt” is an oddity. Asserting the association in spite of the strangeness constitutes a tension.§2Measuring the plausibility of a tension
Here lies Magnen's own contribution. Once a tension has been identified, how can one estimate numerically the extent to which the author actually intended this association of meaning — as opposed to an illusion projected by the reader?
The author defines four factors of vacillation (the floating of the tension). Each is the numerical counterpart of a cause of weakness of the significance. The total vacillation is their product; its own plausibility — the channel — is the inverse of the vacillation.
The four factors
The rank measures whether the arbitration position (to bring together or to separate) is unambiguous or reversible.
- t = 1: only one position yields a broad arbitration. The text excludes the other. Example:
rb(Nature–temple)— the text affirms this union; separating would be absurd. - t = 2: both positions (b and d) yield broad arbitrations. The tension is rivalled by its opposite.
The internal remoteness measures the distance between the two terms in the text, counted in fronts.
If the tension possesses an obvious framework (grammar or syntax renders the relation undeniable), then s = 1 automatically.
Otherwise: s = 2 + (n / 10), where n is the number of fronts between the two terms (telegraphic style).
rb(corrupt–infinite), one counts 5 fronts between the two terms (rich, triumphant, expansion, things, infinite) — so s = 2 + 0.5 = 2.5.The oscillation measures whether the term possesses a plateau — that is, a rival, more commonplace significance allowing the clash of meaning to be side-stepped.
- m = 1: the left-hand term has no plateau through which the tension could be avoided.
- m = 2: the term has a plateau (figurative sense, secondary meaning, etc.) which can act as a diversion.
rb(answer–perfumes), “answer” has a figurative sense (to correspond, to echo) which softens the strangeness of attributing it to perfumes. Therefore m=2.Symmetrical with m, but for the right-hand term.
- w = 1: no escape plateau for this term.
- w = 2: a plateau lets the tension be side-stepped.
rb(corrupt–incense), “incense” can also mean “praise” (the figurative sense, as in “to incense someone”), which softens the paradox — a praise can indeed be corrupt. Therefore w=2.§3Worked example: rb(corrupt–incense)
Let us apply all this to the sonnet's most emblematic tension. Baudelaire affirms that certain perfumes are “corrupt” and lists incense among them — which, for the religious tradition, is precisely the embodiment of purity. A paradox to be measured.
| Factor | Value | Justification |
|---|---|---|
t (rank) | 1 | The text affirms without any hesitation that the incense is corrupt. Separation is not an option. |
s (internal remoteness) | 1 | Obvious framework — the passage clearly links the terms: “and others, corrupt, rich and triumphant… amber, musk, benzoin and incense”. |
m (left oscillation) | 1 | “rich and triumphant” rules out reading “corrupt” in a purely physical sense (organic decay). No plateau. |
w (right oscillation) | 1 | The figurative sense of “incense” (praise) is far away in this passage dominated by concrete perfumes. |
A channel of 1 is the maximum possible value: rb(corrupt–incense) is a perfectly plausible tension, solidly anchored in the poet's thought.
§4When one tension shoulders another
Magnen's major theoretical contribution lies further still. He observes that tensions are not isolated: certain neighbouring ones reinforce one another. A vigorous tension can sustain a fragile one through the effect of shouldering.
When two collisions (broad tensions) share a common term, they may form a tandem. The shouldering received by one is given by:
rb(corrupt–temple) receives from rb(corrupt–incense) (channel = 1) a shouldering of 1/8.4 ≈ 0.119, which makes it interpretable even though it is, in itself, very fragile.The network of a collision is its total plausibility: the sum of its own channel and of all shoulderings (and enhancements) it receives from other tensions in the text.
It is the network — not the channel alone — that truly measures the strength of an interpretation. A weak, isolated tension may be taken for illusion; well reinforced by others, it becomes unavoidable.
§5From tensions to glosses
From the second part of the book onwards, Magnen extends the method to all texts — not only to those in which the author deliberately seeks to create paradoxes. The mechanism operates through the glosses.
A gloss is a commentary linking two traces of the text (where a trace is either a term, or a pivot — a meaning-bearing carrier: punctuation, position, structure). Its weight is measured with the same tools as a tension. Magnen replaces the notion of tension by the broader one of gloss, and the channel by the gradient.
- Problem gloss (written
r): describes a difficulty, minor or grave, in the text. - Attenuation gloss (written
v): comments on a problem gloss in order to soften it. The dams of joints (clamps, shelters, canvases…) belong here. - Neutral gloss (written
o): plainly notes, without problem or attenuation. Comparable to a footnote.
Note: This tool presents the method in condensed form, through its five pivotal concepts. The complete work of Michel Magnen, Meaning and Distance, deploys the theory in 9 parts (Paradoxes, Generalization, Influences, Analogies, Brief figures, Deliberate intrusions, Coherence, Pairs of images, Pairs of interpretations), each exploring a particular aspect of the plausibility of an interpretation.
Plausibility, measured
You enter a tension identified in a text. The tool computes for you the vacillation and the channel — and, if you supply further tensions, the shoulderings and the network.
①The analysed text
②Compute the plausibility of a tension
③Recorded tensions
| Tension | t·s·m·w | Vacillation | Channel | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No tension recorded yet. | ||||
④Compute a shouldering between two collisions
A shouldering requires two collisions which share a common term and the same arbitration position. The formula: shouldering_received_by_h = channel(neighbour) / c, where c is the exterior remoteness.
c = 1. Otherwise, c = 2 + (n/10) where n is the number of intervening fronts.⑤Compute the network of a collision
0.119, 0.008, 0.26