Yes, I have some thoughts. Lever was a bright guy in many regards, but I
wouldn't get too bothered by him at this point. When he was writing many
critics were still affected by post-Romantic notions of sincerity and
originality. (I might add, being a believer in and indeed refiner of Alex
Dunlop's and Bill Johnson's and most recently Ken Larsen's reading of the
sequence as having a calendrical and liturgical aspect, that Amoretti have
overtones and connections that the pre-Dunlop critics missed or only
partly intuited.) It seems to me naive to confuse passion, sincerity, and
occasion. You can write for one person, or no person, and then realize
that the words do very well for yet another person. Are the words badly
chosen or "insincere" simply because you have switched their ostensible
object. A personal story: my son, many years ago, was a fine musician who
in his twenties performed in places from Cambridge to East Germany. He was
a talented guitarist and could invent melodies. He proudly played one for
me that he had written for some girl. He then, rather less proudly,
admitted that he had written the same melody "for" a whole bunch of
girls. Was he dishonest? Sure, but he fell in love easily and the song
seemed to fit the circumstance each time. As a musician he was always
honest. As a lover? Oh well. Whatever. My point is that Lever is being
naive about how words relate to feelings and to time. It is entirely
possible to write something in 1585 that seems beautifully to fit somebody
you marry in 1594. Something that fits one occasion may well fit another
and in any way that matters become part of that new context. Spenser
himself plays with this notion (on which see also Jorge Luis Borges on Don
Quixote by Pierre Maynard) by repeating a sonnet. Is it the same sonnet
each time? In any case by now it may be impossible to know how the sonnets
fit or do not fit Elizabeth Boyle's character--or if Spenser is reflecting
an actual character or encouraging her to have the one he wishes for
her. I would deduce a certain firmness of mind, wit, charm, and (I'm
getting this from Louis Martz) shared amusement at literary silliness. But
what I deduce could be my wishful thinking--or Spenser's wishful
thinking. We just can't know. The "Elizabeth" of the poetry is delightful
and we may have to be content with that and simply rest in hope for
Spenser's real life. Anne Prescott.
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Bethany Matheny wrote:
> I have been reading J.W. Lever's crticism of the _Amoretti_ which
> seems, among other things, unduly cynical. He claims that at least eighteen
> of Spenser's sonnets (Sonnet 10 and 54 are the only of the eighteen that my
> edition names) were written at different times for different reasons and were
> simply inserted in the sequence for make it seem chronologically complete.
> These are the sonnets that speak of Elizabeth refusing his love, etc. While I
> am somewhat willing to believe that not *every* sonnet was written
> specifically to Elizabeth Boyle, these two (and I would assume the other
> sixteen are similar) seem the be the ones that reveal the most specific and
> unique things about Elizabeth's character..... any thoughts?
>
> Bethany Matheny
>
|