Past historians placed Claude Debussy flatly in the borrowed art movement Impressionism

alongside Maurice Ravel for the purpose of categorizing in an organized, logical way based on
critic as well as the obvious geo-chronological relevance. Outdated notions of Debussy's
impressionist tendencies are thinning thanks to an effort to elevate the importance of illuminating
correspondences in Debussy’s own words, citing against the cliche, that is ‘school’ or the claim
of ‘disciples’. Though this is so, it does not imply that the term impressionist was ever correct to
begin with, or that there can never be a proper categorization for his musical identity, simply
because labeling is explicitly against his wish. Perhaps historians can better build and inform a
more pervasive case for labelling Debussy’s modern tendencies as symbolist; while some
sources acknowledge that Debussy is no longer considered impressionist, they only hint at
Debussy’s associations with Symbolism through his connections with Pelleas et Melisande’s
librettist Maurice Maetterlinck, or his songs set to Stephane Mallarme, both of whom are major
symbolist poets/writers.
Symbolism started in French literature, starting with Mallarme and the Belgium Poets
Georges Rodenbach and Emile Varhaeren. [Describe Symbolism] Otherwordliness, representing
nothing here on earth, but rather, a paradise, a utopia if you will.

Historians misrepresent the musical identity of Debussy-- although his body of work ceases to
change, his musical identity has been in flux because identity is so fragile. difference between
narrative and personal identity, the idem and ipse. how biographies work here, (narrative
identity). mediates the aporia.

Works Cited

Meili Steele, “Ricoeur Versus Taylor on Language and Narrative,” ​Metaphilosophy 34,​ no.4
(2003): 425-446.

Patrick Crowley, “​Paul Ricœur: the Concept of Narrative Identity, the Trace of Autobiography,”
Paragraph 26, ​no.3 (2003): 1-12.