Comparative studies have established that Cyprian Norwid knew about Friedrich Creuzer’s famous work on the symbol and mythology. He must at least have read its first volume, particularly the theoretical part (albeit in a French translation). Reading Creuzer aided him in reinterpreting his own concept of the symbol, presented in his early theoretical writings. His point of departure were Creuzer’s remarks about “mystical” and “divine” symbols. Norwid’s reinterpretation did not remain without consequences for his poetry. Recently several Norwid scholars have drawn attention to a fresh interpretative context: the concept of allegory elaborated by Walter Benjamin. They considered the context to be related to Benjamin’s and Norwid’s perception of the modern city (Paris from the “Passagenwerk”) and also to the motive of ruins. Benjamin presented his concept of the allegory in his famous book Origin of German Tragic Drama. He developed it on the basis of the same considerations about the symbol (focusing in a “totalizing” and “necessary” way on the “mystical now”) and allegory as Norwid once did. Here their paths converge. A precondition, however, for understanding Benjamin’s remarks about the symbol is his PhD thesis The Concept of Art Criticism in German Romanticism that devotes much attention to reflexivity in the oeuvre of Novalis and Fr. Schlegel.This “Romanticism of Jena” and its philosophy of consciousness had also impact on Norwid (though mediated by Mickiewicz’s “Parisian Lectures”). Comparing Norwid and Benjamin in these contexts contributes to defining their (differing) attitude towards the temporality of Being and the Holy.