 |
 |
Thank you Bruce Danner for a your reading of the Greenblattian fallacy (more severe, I think, in uncritical imitations of Greenblatt than in RSF itself). I'm not sure it's quite fair to compare Spenserian sensuality to the Marlovian variety -- the reading of "Hero and Leander" at Kalamazoo 2009 was pretty hot stuff as I recall. Maybe it's because I'm not a philosopher, but I'd like to nominate Daniel Lochman's contribution for pun of the semester. Joel B Davis Associate Professor Director, MA Program in English Stetson University 421 N Woodland Blvd Unit 8300 DeLand FL 32721 386.822.7724 ________________________________________ From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Danner [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:41 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer The continued perception of Spenser as an Elizabethan apologist persists in despite of key glaring facts: 1) the bold treatment of religious controversy in The Shepheardes Calendar (Grindal and the unauthorized preachings of the 1570’s; 2) the calling in of the Complaints over the Burghley passages, as well as uncomplimentary allusions to Elizabeth (as well as religion, governance, and the court) in “Mother Hubberds Tale”; 3) Book 5’s brazen treatment of Mary, Queen of Scots (which earned Spenser the wrath of James); 4) Spenser’s palpable disagreements with state policy in Ireland, visible in 1596 FQ and the View, among other several other issues. Marx’s memorable phrase pales in comparison to the influence of Yeats, whose “hatchet” biography of Spenser had an important influence on 20th Century taste. Stephen Greenblatt’s continued influence on contemporary graduate studies cannot be underestimated, where graduate students learn without qualification that Spenser “worships power,” serving as the opposite of Marlowe, who worships the self. Many have corrected Greenblatt's categorical notions, but no study yet has had a comparable influence on young professionals in the field regarding Spenser's politics. For my money, Spenser is the much more bold questioner of state authority than Marlowe, and a cursory reading of Book III alone will find pretty much all of the erotic desires imagined in Marlowe, and then some. Bruce Danner St. Lawrence University -----Original Message----- >From: Kevin Farnham <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Nov 14, 2009 1:18 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer > >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