I hope no one minds my interjecting into what seems to be an argument with some
history, but I think there is a rather obvious answer to MRS' question, "Does
that make him personally guilty in a tragedy that grew beyond the control of
nations?" I think it does, and I say this because the View seems to me to be
the least of the evidence against him. As a secretary to Lord Grey, it was
Spenser's job, if not to slaughter and rob the Irish himself, at least to see
to the smooth operations of those who did. As a facilitator of Grey's
correspondence and a steward of Grey's purse, Spenser would have had a keen
awareness of and an active interest in the conquest of Ireland. Furthermore,
in 1581, Spenser obtained the office of "clerk in chancery for faculties," a
position of ecclesiastical authority, and no small profit, maintained by the
Protestant English government forcibly over the primarily Catholic Irish
people. Just a few years later, Spenser rose to the rank of Deputy Clerk for
the Council of Munster, a position in which he inevitably must have played an
important role indeed in the harsh necessities of the colonial effort and which
implicates the poet in every action of the colonial government in Munster. By
1594, in fact, our poet was considered enough a part of the English regime to
be chosen to sit as a justice for it at a time when the New-English government
of Ireland was doing its best to enforce its own concepts of law and property
upon the native inhabitants.
If one were to remain skeptical of how deeply Spenser is implicated in the
conquest of Ireland based solely on his occupancy of these offices, then added
to this evidence could be the clear illustration of the obvious use Spenser
made of his positions, grabbing up Irish land unashamedly from 1581 on.
The question of Spenser's active and willing involvement in the atrocities in
Ireland is merely a matter of record, leaving us only with the more
interesting question of why it matters to 21st-century readers of his poems.
> Spenser's quote about starvation in Ireland sounds to me like similar
> quotes from American Army officers during the plains Indian wars.
>
> The soldiers were caught between the economic and national ambitions of
> their countrymen and the obvious plight of tribes like the Lakota and the
> Northern Cheyenne. They were players in a drama where it was (and is) nearly
> impossible to find cliche goodguys or badguys...and where they would harshly
> criticized, win or to lose.
>
> Selectively lifted out of that context, the letters and statements of
> army officers on the plains often seemed to call for brutal measures against
> the Indians. More often, however, they were simply pointing out that
> brutality was inevitable...so why not just get the brutality started and over
> with.
>
> Spenser seems to me to be making just such an observation about the
> Ireland of his day...a striking parallel to America's plains wars. He is
> simply making an accurate statement.
>
> Does that make him personally guilty in a tragedy that grew beyond the
> control of nations?
>
> MRS
|