JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SIDNEY-SPENSER Archives


SIDNEY-SPENSER Archives

SIDNEY-SPENSER Archives


SIDNEY-SPENSER@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SIDNEY-SPENSER Home

SIDNEY-SPENSER Home

SIDNEY-SPENSER  November 2009

SIDNEY-SPENSER November 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer

From:

John Staines <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sidney-Spenser Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:24:58 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (107 lines)

Such witty performances so early on a Saturday morning!  But are you implying that I should be skeptical of the graduate student who told me how much she'd learned from that article of mine?  My illusions are dashed!

Yes, we should consider mixed motives.  The romantic contrast between the true, and hence starving, artist and the rich "sell-out" doesn't get us very far.  

John D. Staines
Assistant Professor
Department of English
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
The City University of New York
619 W. 54th Street
New York, NY 10019
________________________________________
From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hannibal Hamlin [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer

Dear Anne (if I may?),

I protest! Any wit and learning that may inadvertenly appear in any of my modest works -- dashed off in leisure hours that could no doubt be better spent -- are without question entirely indebted to those brilliant scholars, yourself preeminently, those scholarly giants upon whose broad shoulders, dwarf that I am, I precariously stand. I am but the moon to your sun, the poor string vibrating sympathetically to your majestic melody, the aluminum wind chime moved by your correspondent breeze.

Your humble and most obedient servant,

Hannibal

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Anne Prescott <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I'm glad you agree, Hannibal. I have long admired what you write and it is an honor to have you on the same list as myself. Your treatment of the psalms in the Renaissance is a model of erudition and you yourself combine both wit and learning. Um . . . I'm applying for a grant to study at the Utopian school of paleology in Ultima Thule. Would you be able to find the time to write me a . . . Your admirer, Anne Prescott.

On Nov 14, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Hannibal Hamlin wrote:

Exactly. I've just been talking with a couple of graduate students about the similarity of the grad school world to the court in Casligione's Courtier. Full of flattery, sprezzatura, patronage, etc.

Hannibal

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Anne Prescott <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
It is entirely possible, isn't it, to like/admire somebody and still be exasperated by some of what s/he does? You can offer genuinely felt praise--and less obviously readable blame or advice. Also, outright hypocrisy can be wearisome to the soul, and so one can feel "sincere" as one writes. In any case, what were the alternatives in Spenser's day? I think there's something a bit unseemly on our part when we blame writers for sucking up to the great and the rich and then going off to write grant proposals or letters telling the Folger how vital its collection is to somebody's work or reminding the Huntington how beautiful its rose garden is (well, maybe that latter example doesn't work as well). What we say isn't false, but candor is not the name of the game in the academic world either, when it comes to mucky pelf. The "hermeneutics of suspicion" is all very well, but we need to apply it to ourselves too. Or not. At least be fair, or maybe charitable, to those without tenure, dead or living. Spenser lived in an economy very different from that of Marx--or the modern university. Ireland is another matter, to be sure. Anne.


On Nov 14, 2009, at 9:45 AM, John Staines wrote:

Roger is undoubtedly right about the general affection for Elizabeth, and even Spenser's, particularly after its peak just after the Armada defeat.  That affection, though, was waning throughout the 1590s.  Indeed, much of the myth of Elizabeth develops under the Stuarts in nostalgic reaction to their failures.  Encomium, of course, mixes praise and blame and uses praise to prod the one being praised to rise to the level of the ideal.  Spenser and his political allies opposed Elizabeth's policies on many fronts (Ireland, the Netherlands, church reform, and her marriage options, to name a few).  If her were merely a flatterer, he would avoid those issues entirely, but his project requires him to offer his suggestions and criticisms under a veil of tact.

I'm still not convinced that Marx actually read any Spenser beyond the historians who had, in his witty words, engaged in the "cannibalism" of the View.  It's clear from Marx's full comment that he is responding to the View and attacking Spenser (with justification) as a representative of the colonial bureaucrats who, in his day, administered much of the world for the profit of capitalists back in Europe.  You can call Spenser "Elizabeth's arse-kissing poet" without having read a word of the Faerie Queene other than its title.  Marx's phrase makes a great sound-bite, but I don't think we should confuse that with a considered reading of the poem.

John D. Staines
Assistant Professor
Department of English
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
The City University of New York
619 W. 54th Street
New York, NY 10019
________________________________________
From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Roger Kuin [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer

One of the things one has to remember is that the 'flattery' of the Queen wasn't all flattery: there was in fact, in the 1570s and 80s a vast wave of gratitude and affection for her. This can go from the little verse on the title-page of Langham's Letter about Kenilworth ('While that our neighbours' Realms, alas, uprore doth rend asunder,/ In mirth among the subjects that her Majesty are under,/She, thanks to God, leads pleasant days: let spite and malice wonder.') to Sidney's writing to the Count of Hanau in the same year, 'she is our Meleager’s brand:  if it perishes, all our tranquillity falls in ruin.' They looked across the Channel at France, riven by civil war, and across the North Sea to the Netherlands, savaged by the Army of Spain; they looked South to Spain itself where from 1574 on they were always working on a fleet against England; they looked at the ports, where men were coming in who planned either to kill Elizabeth or encourage her subjects to do so; they looked across the Irish Sea where Spanish soldiers were landing and being welcomed, on their way to England; they looked at the lands of the Empire, often in religious and/or dynastic chaos, and threatened by the Turks; and their Thanksgiving to and for her Majesty was real and heartfelt. Also, she was of all European monarchs the one with the greatest sense of public relations -- more of her subjects saw her in the flesh than was true of those of any other ruler. And she had genuine charm -- only with her Council and occasionally her inner court did she show her infuriating side. Spenser certainly, through his courtly friends, knew about this; but I've always sensed that he was enough of an Englishman of his time genuinely to feel that love for his Queen.

Roger Kuin



On 14 nov. 09, at 07:18, Kevin Farnham wrote:

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



--
Hannibal Hamlin
Associate Professor of English
The Ohio State University
164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
Columbus, OH 43210-1340
[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>




--
Hannibal Hamlin
Associate Professor of English
The Ohio State University
164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
Columbus, OH 43210-1340
[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager