I post this at the request of a friend whose change of email address has
temporarily blocked him from posting it himself.  Marshall Grossman
writes:


I sent a post to the Spenser list this morning, which bounced back; no

doubt because I have changed my e-mail address. I sent a message to the

list-serve asking for it to be corrected, but the exchanges have,
 in the interim become so torrid (and therefore interesting), that I am

reluctant to wait for the correction to be effected and have my pensee

appear out of order and context. I am pasting it in below and asking
you 
to forward it to the list for me--despite the fact that it begins by 
taking issue with a sentence quoted from you.  Thanks.


Also: in relation to his last post, a question for Mr Shipley--or one 
questions in three versions: Is all distaste for religion necessarily 
bigotted? Can a person reject Christianity thoughtfully and for stated

reasons? Is there no religion-- anywhere and anytime-- worthy, even of

contempt?

Thank you Laurie Johnson.


"I would agree that it's probably best to keep political comment off a

list dedicated to other matters."

"Other matters"? What would Spenser think of that determination? He, at

least claimed, that reading the /Faerie Queene/ ought to be an ethical

act--as readers were to learn something about how to model their own 
behaviors from watching Knights who personified Virtues (to which they

had vexed and developing relationships) encounter perplexing moral 
choices. Do we really believe that it is our not our business to 
correlate a character like Ralph Reed to one like Trompart or 
Braggaducio, or, widening the purview a bit, to ask "what breach in 
nature breeds these foul monsters"? What do we learn about ourselves as

readers of Spenser from the fact that--in a time when the Turpines and

the Tromparts dominate public life--decorum dictates we not discomfort

each other with their living texts.

Perhaps these questions are rhetorically beside the point. So, here is

one decorously pertinent, in the manner of a possible exam question. 
When Calidore courteously but equivocally swears on his knighthood that

Priscilla is "Most perfect pure, and guiltlesse innocent / Of 
blame..../Since first he saw her" (6.3.18)does our own ethical relation

to the text require us to wonder how one ought to adjudicate
conflicting 
demands like those of 'courtesy' and 'honesty'? Does Calidore's
decision 
move in the direction of Huck Finn's resolve to abet Jim's escape and 
thus 'go to hell'or does he sacrifice a core value of chivalry (a 
knight's word) to the easy corruption of social grace (is courtesy a 
form of narcisism?).

In short, if we can't say that we think Ralph Reed is a dangerous and 
corrupt hypocrite for fear of creating social dissonance on  the list 
(and let those who think otherwise explain substantively why and not 
react disingenuously) then what exactly is the point of reading anyway?
 
I'm certainly not comfortable with what Spenser did in Ireland, but
when 
he wrote book 5, he didn't seem to think 'political 
comment'inappropriate to his project.