I can't think that anyone would regret the digression on
character/persona, but if anyone is still pondering the original query:
Hazlitt, who was an exact contemporary with Reynolds, says,
"Spenser...is very apt to pry into mysteries which do not belong to the
Muses. Milton's voluptuousness is not lascivious or sensual. He
describes beautiful objects for their own sakes. Spenser has an eye to
the consequences, and steeps everything in pleasure, often not of the
purest kind" (qtd. in Alpers 1969, pp. 126-27)
Like Reynolds, Hazlitt is impressed by how far Spenser goes in his
descriptions of women, but he comes to an opposite conclusion. The
solution, which Roger Kuin suggested right away, is that the two critics
are thinking of different women: Reynolds of nice girls like Belphoebe,
Hazlitt of bad girls like Duessa and Acrasia, or of indiscreet ones like
Serena..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Wilson-Okamura http://virgil.org [log in to unmask]
English Department Virgil reception, discussion, documents, &c
East Carolina University Sparsa et neglecta coegi. -- Claude Fauchet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|