This is a very learned list, and I greatly enjoy it. Even if one thought that some of the recent posts were a little assinine, one would have to add that their spirit hardly differed from that of the learned poets and writers who are the list's concern.
A learned South Park, so to speak, and none the worse for it.
MM
On Nov 15, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Anne Prescott wrote:
> Easy, Prof. Whitworth--you write Andrew Zurcher (I can send you his e-mail off list if you ask--just e-mail me at [log in to unmask]) and he can remove you. I'm sorry you are bored--good cheer and mutual teasing never bores me, but then I'm not very serious-minded; yet the issue of Spenser and flattery is important, and not just for him but for any number of older writers from Horace snuggling up to Augustus but also writing satire to modern journalists wanting access to presidential airplanes. Anne Prescott.
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Thomas P Roche ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
>> Hurray, Stephen. Tom Roche
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Whitworth, Stephen" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:58 am
>> Subject: Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>> how does one get oneself REMOVED from this silly list? these anti-
>>> intellectual, really very boring conversations are cluttering up
>>> my already full mailbox. i DO NOT wish to be a part of this NON-
>>> conversation any longer. stephen whitworth
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [SIDNEY-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny M [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:35 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer
>>>
>>> Well, but . . . the writer of that little verse has quite a two-
>>> faced description of events at Kenilworth (two-faced like the two
>>> clocks on Leicester’s two towers pointing always to two o’clock,
>>> signifying ‘freendly welcome’ (forsooth)). Not very flattering to
>>> the Queen when probed into. Like Spenser’s Faerie Queene. Where’s
>>> the hermeneutics of suspicion when we need it?
>>> Penny.
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:SIDNEY-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Kuin
>>> Sent: 14 November 2009 07:29
>>> To: [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
>>>
|