True, though I think Marx was a little less polite.
But that last sentence, "The recent revival of his poetry is part of the efforts
of the monopoly capitalists to mobilize all their cultural despotism in
self-defence," seems more of a disparagment of the people who pulled Spenser
out of the mothballs, as it were, than of Spenser himself. It is probably true
that we are all to some extent complicit in a capitalist system, but there are
far better ways to succeed as a capitalist than going into academia. I'm
assuming of course that the people who revived Spenser were academics. I just
can't see the Enron execs of the late 60s reading Spenser.
Besides, given the context of the article, written in 1970, look what Spenser's
work has allowed us to do in terms of critique of culture and the establishment
since the poststructuralist "revolution." There isn't one category that sets
the "us" apart from the "them" where Spenser hasn't given us something to work
with. There are too many cracks in the facade, too many hooks to grab onto. If
Spenser's work were all bread and roses, it wouldn't tell us anything about the
rise of capitalism, the deployment and exercise of power, anxiety about the
female Other, fear about the racial and ethnic Other, the inherently human
imperfection of religious systems, etc. And it would be deadly dull, too.
Still, if we fall back to the criticism that Spenser is just another dead white
male in the canon of other dead white males -- well, what's that ubiquitous old
saying? "Know thine enemy?" We can teach Spenser paired with Lanyer or Mary
Wroth, or Books 4-5 with the Tain Bo (especially the fall of Radigund). Or how
about some literature translated from Arabic where the Saracen is the good guy,
and the Christian and westerner are demonized? Wow, not that would be a great
syllabus to teach right about now.
Jean Goodrich
English Department
University of Arizona
Quoting "Peter C. Herman" <[log in to unmask]>:
> At And I tried to think of just one Spenserian that I've met, just
> >one, that I'd put in league with the "monopoly capitalists to mobilize all
> >their cultural despotism." I mean, Spenserians?! The author is not a
> >Renaissance scholar, perhaps she has mistaken Milton for Spenser?
>
>
> Didn't Marx say something to the effect of Spenser being a bootlicker for
> capitalists? Is that perhaps what the article's author had in mind? Maybe?
>
> Peter C. Herman
> Dept. of English
> SDSU
>
|