{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2826", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 2826, "subject": "Digest urth.v030.n185", "messages": 1, "voices": 1, "first": "2001-09-20T21:04:56+00:00", "last": "2001-09-20T21:04:56+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice Turner", "address": "pei047 at attglobal.net" }, "date": "2001-09-20T21:04:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Digest urth.v030.n185", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \nTo: \nSent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:53 AM\nSubject: Digest urth.v030.n185\n\n-------------- BEGIN urth.v030.n185 --------------\n\n 001 - \"Matthew Davis\" \nSubject: \"Love's Labour's Lost\" in John Crowley's AEgypt\nDate: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:42:35 +0100\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: multipart/alternative;\nboundary=\"----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0\"\n\nThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.\n\n------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0\nContent-Type: text/plain;\ncharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\n\nI know this is primarily a space for discussion of Gene Wolfe, but\nsince > John Crowley does seem to pop up quite regularly I though it might be\na > 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\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "to > John Crowley's \"Aegypt\" - it seems obvious to me but I haven't seen it" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "mentioned in any of the reviews or essays - so if all of the below is\nwell known then I apologise for wasting your time.\n\nOn the surface, Crowley's only use of LLL is for the title of Kraft's\nautobiography and to acknowledge the origins of that title. This all > occurs within the consciousness of Rosie, and the only things they\nevoke > for her are own depression, forlornness and sense of solitude. If you\ndidn't otherwise know you might think LLL is a tragedy, from such a > deliberate misreading of what is actually a comedy. Although a comedy\nthat is almost very nearly a problem play.\n\nI\n\nIf we look at the plot, we can see a use similar to that Crowley makes\nof \"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\nbring 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\nthe > hands of the objects of their desire leaves them compromised and their\nvaunted intellectualism humiliated. Sounds a little like Pierce, yes?\nMost commentators point out that that the movement of the play is\nabout > 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\n\"gnosis\" this is what \"Aegypt\" is all about I can't really argue that\nCrowley is drawing particularly upon this. But it's certainly more > advanced than what one would expect to find in a comedy. And that it\nis > a comedy is important, with its connotations of spring time and the > pastoral. In his treatment of Blackbury Jambs and the Faraway Hills it\nis evident that Crowley is imbuing these locations with the qualities\nof > Elizabethan pastoral. LLL for a pastoral comedy has an advanced\nquality > of knowingness, where the obvious literary artificiality of its plot\nand > the characters conceptions of themselves is transcended by\nacknowledging > genuine mortification and introducing a cyclicality into the lives of\nits protagonists - the vows that lead to farce repeat themself as, if\nnot 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 \nElizabethan storytelling techniques of repetition to induce meaning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of > all Shakespeare's plays, LLL has probably the least action - it is a > comedy of contemplation in set pieces progressing by its protagonists" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "appearances and reappearances in different but very formal\ncombinations. > We know from \"Novelty\" Crowley conceives of \"Aegypt\" in terms\ninfluenced > by \"Euphes\" (LLL is certainly a satire on Euphuism), and indeed\nwithout > its very formal elements of themes, scenes, characters and their > thoughts repeating the whole novel would be impenetrable.\n\nFinally, 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" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "when > they are fooled into making suits to the wrong women, although there\nis > still pathos in their predicament. Just as Pierce's debates of > conscience are still valid even though he has confused the two Roses." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And the play ends uncertain as to whether the suitors will win their > women.\n\nII\n\nLet'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:\n\n\"Welcome the sour cup of prosperity! \nAffliction may one day smile again: and until then, \nSit down, sorrow.\"\n\nHowever, this is wrong. The proper quote , in its fullness, should be:\n\n\"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)\n\nSo: the original passage is prose and the quotation is wrong. The only\ninstance 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\nused > in Charlotte Fell Smith's \"John Dee\" (1909). The assumption we may\nmake > is that in his researches Kraft/Crowley has taken this particular\nquote > from this particular biography of Dee, where this particular chapter > relates Dee's and Talbot's time in Bohemia. Of course it may be\nCrowley > and Smith are using the same edition of LLL, but a quick browse\nthrough > 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\nsingle > instance of this particular version.\n\nIII\n\nOne of the foundations of LLL criticism is that the character of > \"Holofernes\" represents John Florio, and since then other characters\nand > 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" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "people > trying to connect Shakespeare to Giordano Bruno. Florio was an\nassociate > 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\nmay > be derived from Bruno's art of Memory. Personally, I think this is all" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "extremely tenuous at best - given that Francis A. Yates wrote a study\nof > LLL I'm sure that she has at some point examined these connections and\ncome to a more definitive conclusion - but the point is not whether it\nis 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.\n\nHow convincing any of the above is is debatable, but I thought it was\ninteresting how on even brief examination LLL kept touching upon > important scenes, themes and characters in \"Aegypt\" and vice versa.\n\nMatthew Davis\n\n\n------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0\nContent-Type: text/html;\ncharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\nContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\n\n\n\n charset=iso-8859-1\">\n\n\n\n\n
\n

I know this is primarily a space for discussion of Gene Wolfe, but\nsince John \nCrowley does seem to pop up quite regularly I though it might be a > worthwhile \nspace to test out the observations below. I don’t know if anyone\nelse has \ndiscussed the relationship of \"Love’s Labour’s Lost\" to" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "John > Crowley’s \"Aegypt\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "– it seems obvious to me but I haven’t seen it mentioned\nin > any of the reviews \nor essays - so if all of the below is well known then I apologise for\nwasting \nyour time.

\n

On the surface, Crowley’s only use of LLL is for the title of\nKraft’s \nautobiography and to acknowledge the origins of that title. This all > occurs \nwithin the consciousness of Rosie, and the only things they evoke for\nher are \nown depression, forlornness and sense of solitude. If you didn’t\notherwise know \nyou might think LLL is a tragedy, from such a deliberate misreading of\nwhat is \nactually a comedy. Although a comedy that is almost very nearly a > problem \nplay.

\n

I

\n

If we look at the plot, we can see a use similar to that Crowley > makes of \n\"the Solitudes\" as an organising principle: a group of\nscholars/knights > retreat \nfrom the world, makes vows of celibacy and forswear love so that they\nmay \nconcentrate on their studies that will bring them fame and triumph\nover > death \nand time. Of course the real world breaks in upon when they fall in > love, and \ntheir experience at the hands of the objects of their desire leaves\nthem >\ncompromised and their vaunted intellectualism humiliated. Sounds a > little like \nPierce, yes? Most commentators point out that that the movement of the\nplay is \nabout leaving off self-deceptions in a world of enclosed artificiality\nto enter \ninto wider perspective of reality. Of course, this is a fundamental > narrative \npattern, and since in its philosophical form as \"gnosis\" this is what\n\"Aegypt\" \nis all about I can’t really argue that Crowley is drawing > particularly upon \nthis. But it’s certainly more advanced than what one would\nexpect > to find in a \ncomedy. And that it is a comedy is important, with its connotations of\nspring \ntime and the pastoral. In his treatment of Blackbury Jambs and the > Faraway Hills \nit is evident that Crowley is imbuing these locations with the\nqualities > of \nElizabethan pastoral. LLL for a pastoral comedy has an advanced\nquality > of \nknowingness, where the obvious literary artificiality of its plot and\nthe \ncharacters conceptions of themselves is transcended by acknowledging > genuine \nmortification and introducing a cyclicality into the lives of its > protagonists – \nthe vows that lead to farce repeat themself as, if not tragedy, then\nas > an \nexperience of some pain – tying its protagonists’ > development into the \nforthcoming year with a more complicated and emotionally resonant > reality. In \nhis final lecture, Crowley uses Barr to make it quite explicit that he\nis \ndrawing upon Elizabethan storytelling techniques of repetition to\ninduce >\nmeaning. Of all Shakespeare’s plays, LLL has probably the least\naction – it is a \ncomedy of contemplation in set pieces progressing by its\nprotagonists \nappearances and reappearances in different but very formal\ncombinations. > We know \nfrom \"Novelty\" Crowley conceives of \"Aegypt\" in terms influenced by > \"Euphes\" \n(LLL is certainly a satire on Euphuism), and indeed without its very > formal \nelements of themes, scenes, characters and their thoughts repeating\nthe > whole \nnovel would be impenetrable.

\n

Finally, the last third of the play revolves around how each of the\nsuitors \nis fooled into wooing the wrong woman. The breaking of their vows and\nquibbling \nover their consciences is made rather ridiculous when they are fooled\ninto \nmaking suits to the wrong women, although there is still pathos in\ntheir >\npredicament. Just as Pierce’s debates of conscience are still > valid even though \nhe has confused the two Roses. And the play ends uncertain as to\nwhether > the \nsuitors will win their women.

\n

II

\n

Let’s look at the only obvious Crowley makes of LLL. > Kraft’s autobiography is \ntitled \"Sit Down, Sorrow\" later in the book we are given the actual > passage in \nLLL from which it originates:

\n

\"Welcome the sour cup of prosperity!
Affliction may one day\nsmile > again: \nand until then,
Sit down, sorrow.\"

\n

However, this is wrong. The proper quote , in its fullness, should\nbe:

\n

\"I suffer for the truth, sir: for true it is I was taken with > Jaquenetta, and \nJaquenetta is a true girl; and therefore welcome the sour cup of > prosperity! \nAffliction may one day smile again; and till then, sit THEE down, > sorrow.\" – act \nI, sc.1, the final speech, since line numbering varies for prose." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(CAPS > – my " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "own)

\n

So: the original passage is prose and the quotation is wrong. The > only \ninstance I can find of \"Sit down, sorrow\" is accompanied by the\nsame \ncod-versification, and it is here: http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Chapter14/14p1.html\n<> FONT " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "size=2> as an epigraph used in Charlotte Fell Smith’s \"John\nDee\" > (1909). The \nassumption we may make is that in his researches Kraft/Crowley has\ntaken > this \nparticular quote from this particular biography of Dee, where this > particular \nchapter relates Dee’s and Talbot’s time in Bohemia. Of > course it may be Crowley \nand Smith are using the same edition of LLL, but a quick browse\nthrough > various \neditions and their editorial commentary in my local library (which\nholds > a lot \nof reserve stock for the RSC) didn’t turn up a single instance\nof > this \nparticular version.

\n

III

\n

One of the foundations of LLL criticism is that the character of > \"Holofernes\" \nrepresents John Florio, and since then other characters and dialogue > have been \nidentified as various Elizabethan notables and touching upon current > events with \nthe entire play as a satire on the school of Walter Raleigh. In > particular, the \nplay is a locus for people trying to connect Shakespeare to Giordano > Bruno. \nFlorio was an associate of Bruno’s when he was in England and\nthe > character of \n\"Berowne\" has often been identified as being in some degree based upon\nBruno – \nthe extensive use of celestial imagery, the celebration of a vivifying\ndivine \nlove, the extensive use of eye and visualisation imagery that may be > derived \nfrom Bruno’s art of Memory. Personally, I think this is all > extremely tenuous at \nbest - given that Francis A. Yates wrote a study of LLL I’m sure\nthat she has at \nsome point examined these connections and come to a more definitive > conclusion – \nbut the point is not whether it is true, accurate, or even faintly > provable but \nthat this series of Bruno-LLL associations is sufficiently\nlong-standing > to \nmerit consideration and therefore have influence.

\n

How convincing any of the above is is debatable, but I thought it\nwas >\ninteresting how on even brief examination LLL kept touching upon > important \nscenes, themes and characters in \"Aegypt\" and vice versa.

\n

Matthew Davis

\n\n------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C13F97.C133E5E0--\n\n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v030.n185.2 ---------------\n\nFrom: James Jordan \nSubject: Re: (urth) In Glory Like Their Star (SPOILERS) F&SF Mag story\nDate: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:24:17 -0500\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"us-ascii\"; format=flowed\nIn-Reply-To: <200109010031.f810VRc48532 at lists1.ba.best.com>\n\nOnly one thought, and it's probably wrong:\n\nAt 07:28 PM 8/31/2001 -0500, you wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just read this in the Oct/Nov issue of Fantasy & Science Fiction\nmagazine I\ngot in the mail yesterday. Always excited to see a new Wolfe story\nanywhere.\n\nOnce again the more Wolfe stories that come out the less chance there\nis of\nme *thinking* I fully understand them. I doubt I've had that feeling\nsince\nthe early 80s.\n\nS\nP\nO\nI\nL\nE\nR\n\nS\nP\nA\nC\nE\n\n\nI felt shock when within the first page I had figured out that this\nwas a\nstory of aliens (misinterpreted as gods) visiting earth, so I knew\nGene was\ngiving that away and the real mysteries were to come.\n\nAnd once again I have mostly questions that I hope others here can\nshed\nlight on for me (smile).\n\n1. Any idea what the passage on p.110 means? \"Our long voyage\nthrough\nspace impressed them. I doubt they grasped its length, for their\nconcepts\nof the five they call \"time\" are muddled, and so eroneous that they\ncannot\nbe termed primitive with any precision. They will be primitive,\nperhaps,\nwhen the sunlight reaches them on this place.\"\n\nI don't understand the word \"five\" compared to time.\n\nI don't understand where this place that sunlight will reach is to\ntry to\ndetermine when he things earthlings will reach primitive status." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " The light from his own home sun, which he has outrun? Or are\nwe in\na nuclear winter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "2. What is the deal about the earth not being a sphere because the\ndesert\nis a flat spot where gravity works differently? Is the desert the\nmysterious hidden \"Eden\" man is still searching for? Something on a\ndifferent plane where gravity, time, etc. work differently that the\nalien\ncould see but man can't?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Is the \"flat\" area the site of a nuclear detonation?\n\nNutria\n\n\n\n--------------- END urth.v030.n185 ---------------" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "other works" } ] } ] }