User talk:Petrus Iustinus

Francophone sonnets

Transferring the discussion from my Talk page to yours:

Hi! I've just seen that you've rv'd all the additions and clarifications I'd made to the French sonnets section as not being sufficiently sourced (primary sources wouldn't count). I see here that you belong to the category of punctilious contributors who essentially contribute by cutting out other people's work. OK, fair enough. I'm a specialist in the field and it's the quality of my English that might be the problem. If I have time I'll add secondary sources, of which there are plenty given the trivial nature of my corrections and additions. Have a nice cut-out day! Petrus Iustinus (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Iustinus, the idea of these short language summaries is not to name every sonnet writer, but only those who carry the form forward in some significant way. From this point of view, Aragon and Valéry might be worth mentioning for their critical work, but not every writer of note who happened to write a few. And besides, you've ignored Robert Marteau's important sonnet journal series Liturgie of the 1990s. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sweetpool50, let me know: did you rv on the basis of form (lack of secondary sources) or substance (choice of insignificant poets)?

I haven't tried to be exhaustive. I simply gave a handful of significant references, especially for the 21st century (in the 20th century, we'd have to mention Vian, Queneau, Perec's rewritings, etc.). We can argue about Garrigues and Fourcaut (not about the importance of the sonnet in their work, or the modernity of their use of it, but about the importance of their work in the contemporary poetic landscape, which we're far too close to). On the other hand, I don't think that any Francophone who is remotely aware of the current state of fixed forms and poetry in general would deny that Cliff, Degott and especially Roubaud are of the utmost importance among contemporaries, even though they have never received a prize from the Académie française (or not that I know of). We can add Réda, who died recently. For an overview of the sonnet in the 2nd half of the 20th century, see A. Gendre, Évolution du sonnet français 1996. Petrus Iustinus (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confined myself largely to editorial tasks until recently, due to personal circumstances which have now changed. Even so, you didn't give me credit for the recent creation of a Jewish languages section in the Sonnet article, not to mention the synopsis provided for one of John Masefield's novels. That's pretty sloppy research. In the past I have worked with other editors to improve articles - and, of course, I have had experience of acting as an editor of an encyclopaedia, which is as needful as 'specialist' knowledge.

In your case, partnership might be possible, so long as we keep modifications succinct and abide by WP:RS.

I see that Louise Labé did indeed write decasyllabic sonnets in the J'ai Lu anthology I have. We do need to establish who introduced the form to French, as is done in the other linguistic sections; so was it her? After that, perhaps the diversification into moral and religious themes in the 16-17C needs some notice too.
Gerard de Nerval's interesting work, serving as a link between Romantic and Symbolist, definitely deserves a mention.

It seemed to me that he was, albeit very quickly (like Sainte Beuve). To tell the truth, the historical link between the Romantics and the Symbolists is Baudelaire. But this central role of Les Fleurs du Mal, the initiator of modernity, is not clearly set out in the article. (Heredia, a master of the Parnassian sonnet, should probably also have been singled out, although obviously his influence was incomparable with Baudelaire's).

After checking, the article is acceptable for the 16th c (it gives a quick overview of its origins and of the Pléiade), though fairly poor on the 2nd half of the century and the 17th (but the rehabilitation of Mannerism and the Baroque is not very old in France, despite the efforts of Roussel and more recently Roubaud). On the other hand, it is excessively schematic for the 19th c, without highlighting the main themes (the central role of Baudelaire and the pre-eminence of the 2nd half of the century for the development of the form: Verlaine, Rimbaud, Mallarmé, Corbière and possibly Laforgue would be a minimum, with a parallel word on the achievement of the Parnassians : Coppée and above all Heredia, whose impact was considerable at the time, and who were in a way the equivalent in poetry of the academic painters in relation to the avant-gardists). In the 1st 'romantic' half of the century, it would be useful to say a word about the sonnet of Nerval, which indeed has been completely forgotten.

Was use of the sonnet in the 20C really important? Did it take the form into new areas? A survey of Aragon's championship might be in order, especially as prefaces to whole sonnet collections. Then, as mentioned above, there are Marteau's unrhymed sonnets (for which he ultimately received the Prix Mallarmé, I think). Did anyone compare this departure to Robert Lowell's slightly earlier unrhymed collections?

I'll refrain from making any additions to the section until I see what early sources you can come up with. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Marteau is particularly close to the Anglo-Saxon world, but his sonnets (in unmeasured, unrhymed verses), apart from being oxymoronic, are nothing new if you think that Bonnefoy was already doing the same back in '58. Nor are Alain Bosquet's unrhymed sonnets (Sonnets pour une fin de siècle, 1980). In this area, Roubaud's ∈ poèmes (1967) is infinitely more innovative.
The question of the first sonnet is addressed in Roubaud's anthology of the French sonnet (Soleil du soleil, 1990). The first designated, printed and original sonnet dates from 1541, by Nicolas de Herberay. Marot had previously published translations of Petrarch and composed a few sonnets around 1536-38. Saint Gelais around 1540, Peletier du Mans a little later, through whom Du Bellay claims to have become acquainted with this form (his collection L'Olive around 1549 is probably the first major French work entirely composed of sonnets. Let's add Scève for a few dedicatory sonnets. It goes without saying that all these sonnets are composed in decasyllables, heroic verses that correspond to the Italian endecasillabi, as well as the first collections of Du Bellay and Ronsard, because it is the verse that overwhelmingly dominates French poetry with the octosyllable since its origin and throughout the Middle Ages. The first two sonnets in alexandrine can be found in the Vasquin Philieul's translation of the Canzoniere, Laure d'Avignon, published in 1548 (Gendre, op. cit. p 45 note 2), but the alexandrine was not really used until Ronsard's Continuation des amours in 1555 and Du Bellay's Les Regrets in 1558, although it did not replace the decasyllable. The alexandrine is perceived as prosaic, as Du Bellay puts it in Les Regrets, II : "Aussi veux-je (Paschal) que ce que je compose/Soit une prose en ryme, ou une ryme en prose,/Et ne veux pour cela le laurier meriter."
Note that sonnets in decasyllables continued to be produced well into the 19th century and beyond.
By the way, yes, in the 20C, the use of the sonnet wasn't just a relic. Of all the fixed forms, it is clearly the most lively, not only because of its importance in education (the queen form of the 16C and 19C, whose works fill textbooks) but also because of the special fascination it has continued to exert on many poets (a short, crystalline, protean form). In the 21C the importance of the Elizabethan form of the sonnet among sonnetists, many of whom have tried their hand at translating Shakespeare (Cliff, Degott, after Bonnefoy et al.), should also be noted.

Petrus Iustinus (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're adumbrating above is a seperate article on the French sonnet, not a subsection of the Sonnet article. Its detail and plethora of (especially modern) names would unbalance an already overloaded survey of the form. Let's remember, the history of the form is what is encyclopedicly important here, not an exhaustive list of authors...or your favorites.

Nerval? His role as a literary link is mentioned here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was providing details to answer your questions, my dear, and secondary references because the primary ones weren't enough. As for the article, what I had sketched out and which you rv'd was enough to give an overview of the adventures of this form in France up to the present day.

You are very kind with your link, but I think I know enough about Nerval's historical role, not being limited to a "j'ai lu" anthology and vague sources in English. For the Symbolists, the Decadents and all fin de siècle authors, the claimed master was Baudelaire. Nerval was essentially rediscovered by the Surrealists.

I don't know if you read French, but I'm going to suggest that you find an edition of the Manifeste du Symbolisme, and look in it to see if Moréas mentions Nerval. Then look at what he says about Baudelaire. Petrus Iustinus (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]