Were the attitudes to Chaucer not essentially those of earlier poets,
readers, critics and humanists toward Homer? One always gave a nod to Homer,
as guests and midshipmen coming aboard might salute the quarterdeck; but
what one *really* admired was Virgil, so much more polished, so much more in
tune with imperial themes. Homer was the pater patriae literarum, but Virgil
and of course Horace were the real role models? This did not stop anyone
admiring Homer, but really, my dear, would one want to write an *Iliad*
nowadays?
And Spenser does seem to send a different message: I can acknowledge the
Homeric well of English undefiled [undefiled by what, incidentally?] *and*
I can be the English Virgil *and* at the same time I can write ultra-modern
Italian stuff while acknowledging Chaucer/Homer's language in every other
word *and* I can celebrate Queen and country *and* I can fashion a gentleman
or noble person in virtuous and gentle discipline. Top that, Sir Philip. No?
Roger Kuin
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Glenn A. Steinberg <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Date: November 21, 2000 3:58 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Renaissance editions of Middle English texts
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan Knauss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The question then is, is this "detraction?" As Francois Rigolot says,
>>>>> backhanded compliments were common. . . .
>>>>
>>>>I would say that detraction is a matter of intent. The Cambridge men
who
>>>>defend Chaucer *defend* Chaucer. They may excuse his old language or
his
>>>>times in what appear to be backhanded compliments, but they *defend*
>>>Chaucer
>>>>as a legitimate, praiseworthy author.
>>>>
>>>>When Sidney writes that Chaucer did well in Troilus but had "great
>wants,"
>>>>his backhanded compliment might look very similar to comments offered by
>>>>Chaucer's defenders, but it isn't *defending* Chaucer. Sidney is
>>>>acknowledging Chaucer's preeminence (because such an acknowledgement is
>>>>expected), but he's not saying that he admires Chaucer as a model or as
a
>>>>father figure (and his own writing in fact shows little Chaucerian
>>>>influence).
>>>>
>>>>Spenser, Speght, Beaumont, Webbe, et al. *defend* Chaucer with what
Derek
>>>>Brewer characterized as "a Cantabrigian warmth of feeling." If they
feel
>>a
>>>>need to defend Chaucer, they must perceive some sort of threat against
>him
>>>>and his reputation. Time itself is wearing away at Chaucer's language,
>>>>apparently threatening his linguistic currency, but human beings are
>>likely
>>>>the ones who do the real threatening by saying that they don't see why
we
>>>>should read all this Chaucerian "Old English" (as my students sometimes
>>>>fondly put it).
>>>>
>>>>The attack on the difficulty of Chaucer's language is an attack on
>>>Chaucer's
>>>>worth as a poet. Some Elizabethans *defend* Chaucer from that attack,
>but
>>>>others, like Sidney, do not defend him and imply that time has moved on
>to
>>>>better things. Perhaps "detractor" is a bit strong a name to give to
>>>>Sidney's position, but comments like Sidney's seem to have been
perceived
>>>as
>>>>detraction by Chaucer's defenders.
>>>
>>
>>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|