<--prev V30 next-->
From: "Matthew Davis" <matthew@michaelscycles.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: (urth) "Love's Labour's Lost" in John Crowley's AEgypt
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:42:35 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know this is primarily a space for discussion of Gene Wolfe, but since =
John Crowley does seem to pop up quite regularly I though it might be a =
worthwhile space to test out the observations below. I don't know if =
anyone else has discussed the relationship of "Love's Labour's Lost" to =
John Crowley's "Aegypt" - it seems obvious to me but I haven't seen it =
mentioned in any of the reviews or essays - so if all of the below is =
well known then I apologise for wasting your time.
On the surface, Crowley's only use of LLL is for the title of Kraft's =
autobiography and to acknowledge the origins of that title. This all =
occurs within the consciousness of Rosie, and the only things they evoke =
for her are own depression, forlornness and sense of solitude. If you =
didn't otherwise know you might think LLL is a tragedy, from such a =
deliberate misreading of what is actually a comedy. Although a comedy =
that is almost very nearly a problem play.
I
If we look at the plot, we can see a use similar to that Crowley makes =
of "the Solitudes" as an organising principle: a group of =
scholars/knights retreat from the world, makes vows of celibacy and =
forswear love so that they may concentrate on their studies that will =
bring them fame and triumph over death and time. Of course the real =
world breaks in upon when they fall in love, and their experience at the =
hands of the objects of their desire leaves them compromised and their =
vaunted intellectualism humiliated. Sounds a little like Pierce, yes? =
Most commentators point out that that the movement of the play is about =
leaving off self-deceptions in a world of enclosed artificiality to =
enter into wider perspective of reality. Of course, this is a =
fundamental narrative pattern, and since in its philosophical form as =
"gnosis" this is what "Aegypt" is all about I can't really argue that =
Crowley is drawing particularly upon this. But it's certainly more =
advanced than what one would expect to find in a comedy. And that it is =
a comedy is important, with its connotations of spring time and the =
pastoral. In his treatment of Blackbury Jambs and the Faraway Hills it =
is evident that Crowley is imbuing these locations with the qualities of =
Elizabethan pastoral. LLL for a pastoral comedy has an advanced quality =
of knowingness, where the obvious literary artificiality of its plot and =
the characters conceptions of themselves is transcended by acknowledging =
genuine mortification and introducing a cyclicality into the lives of =
its protagonists - the vows that lead to farce repeat themself as, if =
not tragedy, then as an experience of some pain - tying its =
protagonists' development into the forthcoming year with a more =
complicated and emotionally resonant reality. In his final lecture, =
Crowley uses Barr to make it quite explicit that he is drawing upon =
Elizabethan storytelling techniques of repetition to induce meaning. Of =
all Shakespeare's plays, LLL has probably the least action - it is a =
comedy of contemplation in set pieces progressing by its protagonists =
appearances and reappearances in different but very formal combinations. =
We know from "Novelty" Crowley conceives of "Aegypt" in terms influenced =
by "Euphes" (LLL is certainly a satire on Euphuism), and indeed without =
its very formal elements of themes, scenes, characters and their =
thoughts repeating the whole novel would be impenetrable.
Finally, the last third of the play revolves around how each of the =
suitors is fooled into wooing the wrong woman. The breaking of their =
vows and quibbling over their consciences is made rather ridiculous when =
they are fooled into making suits to the wrong women, although there is =
still pathos in their predicament. Just as Pierce's debates of =
conscience are still valid even though he has confused the two Roses. =
And the play ends uncertain as to whether the suitors will win their =
women.
II
Let's look at the only obvious Crowley makes of LLL. Kraft's =
autobiography is titled "Sit Down, Sorrow" later in the book we are =
given the actual passage in LLL from which it originates:
"Welcome the sour cup of prosperity!=20
Affliction may one day smile again: and until then,=20
Sit down, sorrow."
However, this is wrong. The proper quote , in its fullness, should be:
"I suffer for the truth, sir: for true it is I was taken with =
Jaquenetta, and Jaquenetta is a true girl; and therefore welcome the =
sour cup of prosperity! Affliction may one day smile again; and till =
then, sit THEE down, sorrow." - act I, sc.1, the final speech, since =
line numbering varies for prose. (CAPS - my own)
So: the original passage is prose and the quotation is wrong. The only =
instance I can find of "Sit down, sorrow" is accompanied by the same =
cod-versification, and it is here: =
http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Chapter14/14p1.html as an epigraph used =
in Charlotte Fell Smith's "John Dee" (1909). The assumption we may make =
is that in his researches Kraft/Crowley has taken this particular quote =
from this particular biography of Dee, where this particular chapter =
relates Dee's and Talbot's time in Bohemia. Of course it may be Crowley =
and Smith are using the same edition of LLL, but a quick browse through =
various editions and their editorial commentary in my local library =
(which holds a lot of reserve stock for the RSC) didn't turn up a single =
instance of this particular version.
III
One of the foundations of LLL criticism is that the character of =
"Holofernes" represents John Florio, and since then other characters and =
dialogue have been identified as various Elizabethan notables and =
touching upon current events with the entire play as a satire on the =
school of Walter Raleigh. In particular, the play is a locus for people =
trying to connect Shakespeare to Giordano Bruno. Florio was an associate =
of Bruno's when he was in England and the character of "Berowne" has =
often been identified as being in some degree based upon Bruno - the =
extensive use of celestial imagery, the celebration of a vivifying =
divine love, the extensive use of eye and visualisation imagery that may =
be derived from Bruno's art of Memory. Personally, I think this is all =
extremely tenuous at best - given that Francis A. Yates wrote a study of =
LLL I'm sure that she has at some point examined these connections and =
come to a more definitive conclusion - but the point is not whether it =
is true, accurate, or even faintly provable but that this series of =
Bruno-LLL associations is sufficiently long-standing to merit =
consideration and therefore have influence.
How convincing any of the above is is debatable, but I thought it was =
interesting how on even brief examination LLL kept touching upon =
important scenes, themes and characters in "Aegypt" and vice versa.
Matthew Davis
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4207.2601" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2>
<P>I know this is primarily a space for discussion of Gene Wolfe, but =
since John=20
Crowley does seem to pop up quite regularly I though it might be a =
worthwhile=20
space to test out the observations below. I don’t know if anyone =
else has=20
discussed the relationship of "Love’s Labour’s Lost" to John =
Crowley’s "Aegypt"=20
– it seems obvious to me but I haven’t seen it mentioned in =
any of the reviews=20
or essays - so if all of the below is well known then I apologise for =
wasting=20
your time.</P>
<P>On the surface, Crowley’s only use of LLL is for the title of =
Kraft’s=20
autobiography and to acknowledge the origins of that title. This all =
occurs=20
within the consciousness of Rosie, and the only things they evoke for =
her are=20
own depression, forlornness and sense of solitude. If you didn’t =
otherwise know=20
you might think LLL is a tragedy, from such a deliberate misreading of =
what is=20
actually a comedy. Although a comedy that is almost very nearly a =
problem=20
play.</P>
<P>I</P>
<P>If we look at the plot, we can see a use similar to that Crowley =
makes of=20
"the Solitudes" as an organising principle: a group of scholars/knights =
retreat=20
from the world, makes vows of celibacy and forswear love so that they =
may=20
concentrate on their studies that will bring them fame and triumph over =
death=20
and time. Of course the real world breaks in upon when they fall in =
love, and=20
their experience at the hands of the objects of their desire leaves them =
compromised and their vaunted intellectualism humiliated. Sounds a =
little like=20
Pierce, yes? Most commentators point out that that the movement of the =
play is=20
about leaving off self-deceptions in a world of enclosed artificiality =
to enter=20
into wider perspective of reality. Of course, this is a fundamental =
narrative=20
pattern, and since in its philosophical form as "gnosis" this is what =
"Aegypt"=20
is all about I can’t really argue that Crowley is drawing =
particularly upon=20
this. But it’s certainly more advanced than what one would expect =
to find in a=20
comedy. And that it is a comedy is important, with its connotations of =
spring=20
time and the pastoral. In his treatment of Blackbury Jambs and the =
Faraway Hills=20
it is evident that Crowley is imbuing these locations with the qualities =
of=20
Elizabethan pastoral. LLL for a pastoral comedy has an advanced quality =
of=20
knowingness, where the obvious literary artificiality of its plot and =
the=20
characters conceptions of themselves is transcended by acknowledging =
genuine=20
mortification and introducing a cyclicality into the lives of its =
protagonists –=20
the vows that lead to farce repeat themself as, if not tragedy, then as =
an=20
experience of some pain – tying its protagonists’ =
development into the=20
forthcoming year with a more complicated and emotionally resonant =
reality. In=20
his final lecture, Crowley uses Barr to make it quite explicit that he =
is=20
drawing upon Elizabethan storytelling techniques of repetition to induce =
meaning. Of all Shakespeare’s plays, LLL has probably the least =
action – it is a=20
comedy of contemplation in set pieces progressing by its protagonists=20
appearances and reappearances in different but very formal combinations. =
We know=20
from "Novelty" Crowley conceives of "Aegypt" in terms influenced by =
"Euphes"=20
(LLL is certainly a satire on Euphuism), and indeed without its very =
formal=20
elements of themes, scenes, characters and their thoughts repeating the =
whole=20
novel would be impenetrable.</P>
<P>Finally, the last third of the play revolves around how each of the =
suitors=20
is fooled into wooing the wrong woman. The breaking of their vows and =
quibbling=20
over their consciences is made rather ridiculous when they are fooled =
into=20
making suits to the wrong women, although there is still pathos in their =
predicament. Just as Pierce’s debates of conscience are still =
valid even though=20
he has confused the two Roses. And the play ends uncertain as to whether =
the=20
suitors will win their women.</P>
<P>II</P>
<P>Let’s look at the only obvious Crowley makes of LLL. =
Kraft’s autobiography is=20
titled "Sit Down, Sorrow" later in the book we are given the actual =
passage in=20
LLL from which it originates:</P>
<P>"Welcome the sour cup of prosperity! <BR>Affliction may one day smile =
again:=20
and until then, <BR>Sit down, sorrow."</P>
<P>However, this is wrong. The proper quote , in its fullness, should =
be:</P>
<P>"I suffer for the truth, sir: for true it is I was taken with =
Jaquenetta, and=20
Jaquenetta is a true girl; and therefore welcome the sour cup of =
prosperity!=20
Affliction may one day smile again; and till then, sit THEE down, =
sorrow." – act=20
I, sc.1, the final speech, since line numbering varies for prose. (CAPS =
– my=20
own)</P>
<P>So: the original passage is prose and the quotation is wrong. The =
only=20
instance I can find of "Sit down, sorrow" is accompanied by the same=20
cod-versification, and it is here: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Chapter14/14p1.html"><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Chapter14/14p1.html</FONT></A><=
FONT=20
size=3D2> as an epigraph used in Charlotte Fell Smith’s "John Dee" =
(1909). The=20
assumption we may make is that in his researches Kraft/Crowley has taken =
this=20
particular quote from this particular biography of Dee, where this =
particular=20
chapter relates Dee’s and Talbot’s time in Bohemia. Of =
course it may be Crowley=20
and Smith are using the same edition of LLL, but a quick browse through =
various=20
editions and their editorial commentary in my local library (which holds =
a lot=20
of reserve stock for the RSC) didn’t turn up a single instance of =
this=20
particular version.</P>
<P>III</P>
<P>One of the foundations of LLL criticism is that the character of =
"Holofernes"=20
represents John Florio, and since then other characters and dialogue =
have been=20
identified as various Elizabethan notables and touching upon current =
events with=20
the entire play as a satire on the school of Walter Raleigh. In =
particular, the=20
play is a locus for people trying to connect Shakespeare to Giordano =
Bruno.=20
Florio was an associate of Bruno’s when he was in England and the =
character of=20
"Berowne" has often been identified as being in some degree based upon =
Bruno –=20
the extensive use of celestial imagery, the celebration of a vivifying =
divine=20
love, the extensive use of eye and visualisation imagery that may be =
derived=20
from Bruno’s art of Memory. Personally, I think this is all =
extremely tenuous at=20
best - given that Francis A. Yates wrote a study of LLL I’m sure =
that she has at=20
some point examined these connections and come to a more definitive =
conclusion –=20
but the point is not whether it is true, accurate, or even faintly =
provable but=20
that this series of Bruno-LLL associations is sufficiently long-standing =
to=20
merit consideration and therefore have influence.</P>
<P>How convincing any of the above is is debatable, but I thought it was =
interesting how on even brief examination LLL kept touching upon =
important=20
scenes, themes and characters in "Aegypt" and vice versa.</P>
<P>Matthew Davis</P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0--
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/
<--prev V30 next-->