 |
 |
Offhand, I'd say certainly yes. For example, on pg. 185 of the Collected Works edition, the discussion of Utopian slavery has this marginal comment, "The Extraordinary Fairness of This People." Presumably, this refers to how "Prisoners of war are not enslaved unless captured in wars fought by the Utopians themselves," but since we know that the Utopians go to war for a very, very wide range of reasons, they likely have an unending supply of slaves. Nor does it seem very fair to "carry away" previously condemned prisoners to a lifetime of continual work while in chains. Peter C. Herman At 01:34 PM 10/2/2006, you wrote: >Moving back in time, would the marginalia in More's _Utopia_ qualify as >parodic commentary? >MJG > > > Dear All, > > I suppose there is a long tradition of (disingenuous) > > self-commentary > > in English letters. But I would certainly add to the short list the "Night > > Lessons" episode of Joyce's _Finnegans Wake_ where Shem, Shaun, and Issy > > all > > gloss the text; and Eliot's _Waste Land_ where the notes have always > > seemed > > to me a bit parodic. > > Brad. > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:59:14 -0400 > > william godshalk <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Could we compare Spenser to Nabokov in Pale Fire, where the Commentary > >> is > >>not entirely reliable? > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> At 06:14 PM 10/1/2006, you wrote: > >>>Hi Charlie, > >>> > >>>To agree with you: it seems to me that, even if someone were to discover > >>> an > >>>acrostic in 'October' reading 'I AM E K', we would still have to > >>> consider > >>>the question open. (Though please don't let me stop anyone from looking > >>> for > >>>acrostics in 'October': a very noble enterprise.) Isn't that the fun of > >>>masking, as time us taught, &c? (Oh, and the identity of E.K. seems to > >>> me > >>>as good an explanation as any for understanding why Spenser's name > >>>continues not to appear on The Shepheardes Calender during his > >>> lifetime.) > >>> > >>>Anyway, as for why Spenser might have written a bad gloss on elves, or > >>>allowed his friend to write a bad gloss on elves: doesn't that sound > >>> like > >>>fun, too? I mean, if you are writing a pseudo-learned commentary on your > >>>own works, obviously you will want some of the glosses and annotations > >>>completely to miss the mark, because that makes the whole project of > >>>self-disclosure and self-interpretation less stable and more productive > >>>(see the glosses on Hobbinol and Rosalind in, say, 'Januarye'; and again > >>> in > >>>'Aprill'); then, to compound the joke, you play most havoc with the > >>>reference that has most to do with your own interests and future career > >>>prospects. Keep in mind, too, that Spenser gives some pretty > >>> spectacularly > >>>bad etymologies to Irenius in A view, as well. And I think it's also > >>>probably worth considering, with Matthew Woodcock in his recent book > >>>_Renaissance Elf-Fashioning_, that Spenser deliberately used in FQ what > >>> he > >>>and his contemporaries seem to have considered to be a low-comic, > >>>folkloric, and altogether silly convention (fairies) precisely because > >>> it > >>>was anti-epic; in that light, this gloss doesn't look so strange, but > >>>rather seems to be playing the same game. > >>> > >>>andrew > >>> > >>> > >>>andrew > >>> > >>>Andrew Zurcher > >>>Tutor and Director of Studies in English (Part 1) > >>>Queens' College > >>>Cambridge CB3 9ET > >>>United Kingdom > >>>+44 1223 335 572 > >>> > >>>hast hast post hast for lyfe > >> > >> *************************************** > >> W. L. Godshalk * > >> Department of English * > >> University of Cincinnati Stellar disorder * > >> Cincinnati OH 45221-0069 * > >> 513-281-5927 > >> *************************************** > >