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]>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]>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]] On
>>> Behalf Of Roger Kuin [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:28 AM
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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]
>
>
>
--
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]
