Talk:Louise Labé

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)

Three points on details

1) Daughter of Charly and wife of Perrin, the name Labé comes (one way or another-see below) from the rope-making factory which her father and (as far as I can discern) also her husband later owned and ran. (Or was it her brother who inherited it from her father, I'm not too sure.)

2) Her father is described as a wealthy or rich 'ropemaker' in the few English sources I have looked at but I would suggest it is the wrong word. Even qualified by 'rich', 'ropemaker' might suggest to most readers a semi-skilled profession possibly carried out in the home, a sort of cottage industry. Her father was a member of the Lyon establishment and the rope-making factory he owned had a significance something like that of a modern steelworks. Just as 'rope baron' would be too grand for the father, 'ropemaker' even qualified by 'rich' seems too modest. I favor 'rope manufacturer' or 'rope merchant.'

3) As far as I can tell, 'the beautiful ropemaker' is an incorrect and potentially confusing translation. There is debate as to whether Louise Labé provided paid-for sex; in any case she never made rope for a living and she was never boss of a rope factory. Before the beginnings of equal oportunities for women in France, identifying a woman using a job title simply revealed the profession of her husband or father. For example, 'La Notaire' was 'the sollicitor's wife' and not 'the (female) sollicitor.' So 'La Belle Cordière' = 'the beautiful rope-manufacturer's daughter' or, later, 'wife,' 'widow'.

- - - - - - - - - Notes on the above:

The source for my first point is the Budini 'Notice' available through Siefar.org. To find it, click on 'debates' and follow the link to the page on Louise Labe ('Louise Labé attaquée!') His contribution is found by following link number 24, (Paolo Budini,extrait de la notice biographique traduite de l’italien, parue dans L’Opera di Louise Labé Lionese, éd. et trad. P. Budini, numéro spécial de la revue In forma di parole (Bologna), XXIX année, n° I, janvier-mars 2009, 202 p.) It is the most recent contribution to the Siefar debate. See section 4 (pages 4-5) and page 6 (section 6) for information on her husband and her parents.

yours provisionally 01:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC) formatting yours provisionally 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Steven Roger Fischer in A History of Reading (Reaktion Books, London, 2003, ISBN 1861892098) says on page 235 that "eventually she married a middle-aged, wealthy Lyonnais ropemaker, with whom she was apparently very happy, but then dedicated herself wholly to literary pursuits ..." Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Huchon debate as seen through the contributions to Siefar

If your follow all the freely-accessible links on Siefar you'll see that:

the last contribution was in 2010 or 2011 if you count something from 2008 that was republished;

among the contributions collected here, the hypothesis was first received with a mixture of annoyance, incredulity and ridicule/amusement. Conspiracy theories attributing her work to male authors were not new, but nor were they serious. It is a very old game, claiming a sensational scoop about Louise Labé. The archivists have an ironic attitude at the many researchers who still come to investigate the archives looking for a sensational piece of evidence. The majority of the historical documents mentioning or possibly mentioning Louise are printed in one of the affordable student editions of the works, and with the internet, any reader can quite easily access all the sources that Mireille Huchon had access to. (Huchon relies on no new evidence, just controversial, semi-new interpretations). There is simply nothing unknown to be discovered in the archives, hence the archivists amusement.

The hypothesis soon received a different status after Fumaroli wrote his article, and the tone of Huchon's critics generally became more cautious. As for Fumaroli: Huchon was incidental to the point he makes in the article, and it is hard to maintain that he was in a position to make an informed judgement that Huchon's theory was plausible. Had he read her book? He seems far more to be "taking her word for it". In writing Exista-t-il à Lyon une Louise Labé qui n’a pas laissé d’autres traces littéraires que le petit recueil de 1545 et les jeux de mots (...) auxquels ce nom se prêtait ? he shows himself to be unfamilar with the relevant biographical documents, apparently ignoring material such as her will. It was, like I say, a journalistic article about whether we should value "authenticity" and how the reader should approach "the author", be it Proust, Ronsard or "Labé", -- and for the purposes of this debate should not be understood as anything more than an uncritical backing of a book he was not in a position to evaluate.

Amongst the noteworthy contributions collected on Siefar, a couple or so agree with Fumaroli in considering that in the book Huchon has sufficiently proved her case. Other contributors raise considerable doubts, arguing that textual analysis points to the works of Labé to be uniform and very different from those of the supposed authors of this hoax. (You don't actually need to be a "professor" to notice that -- hence the ricicule that was still found in some post-Fumaroli contributions.)

There are several thoughtful contributions which consider that Huchon has raised some very valid and difficult questions that future scholars will have to answer, but all of this group find that the later part of the book contains major shortcomings in methodology and reasoning. A typical conclusion from a member of this group is that "thanks to Huchon's shining a new light on the biographical evidence, we can no longer believe that Labé is the author of these texts, but Huchon's claims to have found the true authors rely on fanciful and unconvincing interpretantions of the texts. She has been better at disproving than proving."

In the most comprehensive and apparently final entry, Budini surveys all the available biographical evidence. He basically validates the first response to the book, that of Claude Duneton in the ABSOLUTELY hilarious article (it is more amused than outraged, and very witty, playful) http://www.siefar.org/debats-articles/c-duneton-figaro-litteraire.html?var_mode=calcul but in marginally more polite terms. ("Marginally more polite"--Budini makes no pretense of having any esteem for her book). He sets out all the evidence at length, --necessarily including all the evidence that Huchon had used in her book -- and shows that, however unclear the picture of Labé that emerges down the ages, we not only have more information about her than about several of her contemporary poets for whom we do not for example have a date of birth. It requires a puzzlingly capricious interpretation of what is and what is not "reliable evidence" to find any support for a hypothesis that questions the status of Labé as the author. Rather than looking insightfully at evidence that had long been followed too naively, --as the group above believed her to have done -- it was argued that on closer inspection Huchon's analysis of the biographical information is simply far less reliable than the work of previous scholars who she seems to oddly sideline. For one, the theory meets significant difficulties when we are asked to imagine whether two very serious and respectable people, the noblewoman to whom the book is dedicated and the royal official who granted permission for the publishing -- a serious business indeed-- were also part of this "delightful hoax", this exhuberant intellectual game. Why did neither the educated upper-middle class woman daughter-of-Charly-and-wife-of-Perrin known as Louise Labé, nor the noblewoman, both victims of this disreputable hoax, speak out? And, as many have argued, the one thing that a person is likely to do after perpetuating an extremely clever hoax is boast about it. How, in such a "garullous and quarrellous" group of writers as those who perpetuated "the hoax which tops all others that went before it", do we find no overt mention of it? It emerges from Budini's 13 page text that rather than being considered a worthwhile contribution to scholarship, Huchon's book arguably fits better into the long history of myths and fantasies about Lousie Labé produced from the imaginations of various novelists, biographers, -- or, in the case of Huchon, a highly-esteemed scholar, -- whose speculations have, over the centuries, periodically excited and delighted certain readers, including the esteemed Marc Fumaroli.

I would conclude that the Huchon hypothesis can quite perfectly be described as an improbable conspiracy theory and, as with the question of Shakespeare's "debated" authorship, there is no legitimate debate. Which is not to say that no academics accept the theory.

I actually got quite far in providing the page numbers, paragraph numbers for the references to the over-a-dozen sources, translating some of the key quotes. But to lend the authority that footnotes and quotes would provide to what I write, and to paraphrase everything for English-only editors, my text would have to be made up approximately 3/4 of quotes.

Many thanks. From the contributor who previouly signed as "yours provisionally" 77.98.32.90 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

my latest edits

may be the last of my contributions, I've already done more than I expected. I felt I had to come back to quote my sources. As you'll see, it is chiefly everything on Siefar up to 24, and notes and introductions from Oeuvres complètes présentation par François Rigolot, Flammarion, 2004, Paris. (1st edition 1986) and Oeuvres poétiques / Louise Labé. précédées des Rymes de Pernette Du Guillet. avec une sélection de Blasons du corps féminin / édition présentée, établie et annotée par Françoise Charpentier. Gallimard, 1983

I've scanned the other two contributions for Siefar: they seem very good but don't change anything. 25, Michel Jourde, « Louise Labé, deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle », Cultures et société en Rhône-Alpes, n°2, avril-mai-juin 2008, p. 74-78 ; rééd. en ligne sur le site de Transitions,rubrique "Republications", n°2, 2011, is very good for explaining that she did not only publish, but publish with Royal Priviledge, something rare and hard to obtain, and no doubt impossible if you didn't write the book (or did not exist).

So I no doubt repeated myself, I'm sure it can be improved, but I don't see how my contributions could become en masse a candidate for removal. None of it is "made up", none is "original research" !!!

77.98.32.90 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

explaining something I removed earlier

It is better than my work, could easily have been written by a professional academic. You find these arguments in publications. I removed it because my view is, this would belong on a wikipedia page dedicated to Huchon's book.

"However, other critics do not concur with Huchon's view. First, her theory, although intriguing, remains speculative; she reinterprets existing historical documents, rather than citing new evidence. Second, Labe's corpus does contain verbal echoes of works by Sceve and other writers in his circle. These echoes, typical of Renaissance practices of intertextuality, indicate that Labe collaborated and interacted with her poetic contemporaries, but they do not necessarily indicate that her contemporaries went so far as to ghost-write her works. Finally, a unique stylistic voice and a remarkable consistency of vocabulary and themes are found throughout all of Labe's different texts, a phenomenon that renders it unlikely that the texts were composed by more than one person."

77.98.32.90 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Louise Labé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129105135/http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html to http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206163326/http://www.siefar.org/RessourcesEtudes/Buron-Louise-Labe.pdf to http://www.siefar.org/RessourcesEtudes/Buron-Louise-Labe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129105135/http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html to http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129105135/http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html to http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614130326/http://www.siefar.org/RessourcesEtudes/Martin-Louise-Labe.pdf to http://www.siefar.org/RessourcesEtudes/Martin-Louise-Labe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129105135/http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html to http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060114174208/http://www.biblioweb.org/-LABE-Louise-.html to http://www.biblioweb.org/-LABE-Louise-.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075158/http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/labe.html to http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/labe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louise Labé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129105135/http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html to http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129105135/http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html to http://www.siefar.org/ActuSIEFAR-Labe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)