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.

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.

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!
Affliction may one day > smile > again: > and until then,
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: href="http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Chapter14/14p1.html">http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Chapter14/14p1.html <> FONT > size=2> 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