Talk:Louise Labé

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Huchon hypothesis

  • Just today there were a bunch of changes to this article to basically rewrite the article in line with the Huchon hypothesis: A rewrite of the lede paragraph describing Labé as fictitious, quotes on the "biography" head ("Biography of 'Louise Labé'"), and commentary that the hypothesis is "now generally accepted". Questions:
  • Accepted by whom? So far as I know it is still in contention. The lede paragraph of the biography should not be changed at this point. To make this assertion there would need to be third-party publications acknowledging that it is "generally accepted", and since it's controversial and overturning a lot of received scholarship, there would need to be multiple such citations. --lquilter 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've edited the lede paragraph back to include both the biographical info & the Huchon hypothesis. --lquilter 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely not generally accepted. It's one theory by one academic in her recent book, and one book reviewer called it "irrefutable", which is not at all proof it's irrefutable. One person challenges the existence of a well-known writer - with 400 years of "existence" - that is not reason to delete the person or to put in the top lines of their biography that they are known not to have existed. See the discussion on the WOMPO women's poetry archives from last year and this year, for one, to see some refuting from quite notable poets and scholars like Annie Finch and Marilyn Hacker, among others. Lizzard 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I would be wary of taking such an absolutist position Lizzard. The controversy surrounding Louise Labé in the academic world is far more widespread than you may realise - and at the moment it is definitely tending towards a "regendering" of the poet. I would certainly hesitate to declare the editing of the article that occured earlier today a mere act of male chauvinist misogyny (I know you didn't). There are several works of the period that pose the question of authorial identity - not least the very "feminist" Jeanne Flore (or would it be the very male Spanish poet Jehan de Flores?). Moreover, you are entirely wrong to say that "one" academic and "one" critic challenge the existence of this well-known writer. The notion of "mystification", trickery and mistaken identities in the literature of the sixteenth century and the enigma of Louise Labé's identity has already been dealt with by the illustrious Enzo Giudici (Spiritualismo e carnascialismo. Aspetti e problemi del cinquecento letterario francese, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane: Napoli, 1968); and also by Olivier Millet, Verdun L.Saulnier and François Rigolot ( Echos pétrarquiens dans la poésie de Louise Labé : la nouvelle Laure lyonnaise et le paradigme du giovenile errore) among many, many others. The idea of "Louer Louise" as a poetic dialogue between Clément Marot and Antoine Du Moulin, a game of "mots marotiques" playing on Petrarch's "Laudare Laure"; the textual inconsistiencies in Louise's works and the similarities with Scève, Aubert and Jacques Peletier du Mans (among others) along with the mere nature of literary endeavour of the Scevian circle cannot be discarded so simplistically under the sub-heading "The Huchon Theory." And as for your "one" book critic, I would take a look at Laurent Angard ("« Louer Louise » ou l’énigme Louise Labé" in Acta, 23/4/2006) and Angèle Paoli to name a few. It is not simply a case of erasing someone "with 400 years of existence"...that really is a moot argument. I believe the Wikipedia article should be far more balanced and informed than it is at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.149.171 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we should keep working on the article to get it right. But "definitely tending toward" is a far cry from "generally accepted". If the academic community is tending toward acceptance, then that's what the article should say, and it should give a picture of this trend and current snapshot. With cites. --lquilter 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The paragraph that I would like to add to the entry, opposing Huchon's theory, does need citations. There are not many sources to cite yet, because it takes time for academic responses to be published in print form. Huchon's thesis is very recent, and prominent Labe scholars have not yet had much time to voice their opinions in articles and reviews. However, her book contains so many undefended conjectures that it is sure to be picked apart in myriad ways. With all due respect, the person who originally added the section about the Huchon book to the wiki entry clearly had not bothered to read it, since s/he presented its main argument incorrectly (saying that Huchon's theory was that Labe did not exist, whereas in reality Huchon never questions Labe's existence as a historical person). The above comment seems to be another summary by a person who does not have much first-hand knowledge of the critics and poets s/he cites. Giudici and Rigolot have both written many studies on Labe, and have never suggested that she did not author her own works. In short, Huchon's book is full of holes and is not going to become generally accepted (except perhaps by non-specialists who haven't read it). However, it will take awhile for all the fuss to die down.(Jchimene 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC))
  • I should also apologize for how bad I am at formatting. This is the first wiki entry I've ever tried to edit. I was moved to do it because I was so tired of my students coming up with inaccurate information on Labe from the wiki page.(Jchimene 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC))
  • re: "had not bothered to read it" - I was the person who originally included the Huchon hypothesis material in the article on 11 May 2006, a few days after Fumaroli's review appeared in Le Monde (5 May 2006), and no, at that time, I had not yet had a chance to read Huchon's book, but I felt the information to be important enough -- and Fumaroli to be a significant enough critic -- to justify inclusion of the material in the article; my presentation of Huchon's work was based on that review, as acknowledged by the footnote. I apologize if there were inaccuracies. This being said, I have to say that 90.198.149.171 makes some good points above, and editors should try to avoid simplifications and to justify all statements with notes and references that interested parties (and students) may verify. -- NYArtsnWords 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I shouldn't have said "had not bothered to read it" - that was rude of me. I looked at your user page and you are clearly an editor of integrity. You deserve thanks for updating the entry to include the Huchon hypothesis. However, I feel that Marc Fumaroli's review in Le Monde gave Huchon's book more instant credibility than it deserved. Fumaroli is indeed a brilliant and respected critic (as Huchon herself is a respected scholar), but he is also well-known for being extremely ideologically conservative. In addition, he is not a scholar of Louise Labe; to my knowledge, he has never written a word about her. Thus far no scholar who has actually published anything on Labe (again, to my knowledge) has come close to calling Huchon's book "irrefutable." And Huchon's arguments contain the kind of minor historical detail that can only be applauded or refuted by someone with similar specialist knowledge. In my opinion, it distorts the Wikipedia entry on Labe to devote so much space to only one of the many critical books about her, especially so early on, when her colleagues have not yet had time to respond to her ideas in print. In my view, it would be much more even-handed to confine mention of Huchon to a sentence or two, not to give her theory such a prominent place in the entry (which it still has). That's why I put in a few sentences about the opposing points of view, in order to redress the balance a little. You were right to ask for sources, but as I said above, scholarship moves more slowly than the lightning world of the press (and Wikipedia). In another year or two, this debate (I hope) will be far easier to reference.(Jchimene 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Point taken on the space devoted to Huchon's hypothesis. Thanks for adding material on the opposing point of view and for the references: all that makes for a better article. Please continue to contribute! -- NYArtsnWords 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)