Lochman, Daniel T wrote:
> This thread deserves a place in the Posterior Analytics.
>
>
Yes. I used to think I wished I'd had the opportunity to become a
professor in English Literature. Reading this thread makes me think that
maybe going the technology route, with literature and philosophy and the
mystic tradition as a part-time endeavor, might have been more prudent
after all!
The question for me, as (still) a Spenser novice, is -- did Spenser
flatter too much? i.e., did it degrade his art? To me, parts of the FQ
are artistically less perfect due to what appears to me to be pandering
to the illustrious Queen. I hate the parts that virtually duplicate
contemporary events, with the Queen portrayed as the light of the world,
and her opponents portrayed almost as Satan's slaves.
So -- was such pandering a necessary aspect of the "game" that had to be
played in order to attain visibility as a major artist during those
times? If Spenser chose not to "pander" to Elizabeth, is it really
possible that we might not be reading him today? Is that the way that
world was?
Did Shakespeare not have to pander only because he was "accepted" as a
fully qualified flatterer early in his career (perhaps he was a personal
friend of the Queen)?
You're the experts! Tell me the answer, please! This question has
bothered me ever since I've been studying Spenser and learned of his
biography. His art is such that it seems like he shouldn't have had to
pander to anyone to achieve fame into many future centuries. Yet, to me,
it seems like he willfully chose to pander, to flatter, immensely at times.
Was Marx right? Did Spenser do that? Did he have to do so? Did he have
doubts about his ability as an artist (seems unlikely). So, why pander?
Why not be like Dante?
Was, perhaps, the late life return to lyric (Epithalamion, et. al) a
decision that pandering wasn't worth the effort? In FQ he signals this
return. The epic may not be worth the effort, it may be better to
experience and live that which is portrayed in idyll?
Kevin
|