 |
 |
Responding to Beth -- On the one hand, I have to confess that I know vastly less Spenser criticism than many eminent Spenserians on this list, but I also feel -- perhaps liberated by my ignorance -- that it would be a shame if a lively and -- again I feel -- valuable discussion like this were to be curtailed by a need for variorum-style footnotes. I actually feel this way about written criticism too, to some degree. If everyone writing about a passage in FQ were bound to reference every other prior publication on that passage, how soon before criticism becomes unreadable? Obviously there are limits to this, and we would all review a new publication rather negatively if it seemed to be claiming new insights when these were already expressed elsewhere. But still. And over the course of this thread, there have in fact been many nods to various publications, which seems fine. Could one perhaps Spenserize this, by making an analogy to the quest pattern in FQ, where no knight seems ever in the position of being able to rest upon the achievements of others (or even himself), but must continually sally out to face each adversary anew? On Lewis, I'm not sure I quite buy the argument about Catholicism and allegory. Was Spenser really so restricted in his choice of representing various aspects of holiness? He could have found (and often did) biblical models, for instance, rather than specifically Catholic ones, which would have avoided the confessional polemics of his day. It would surely have been possible to represent Una's purity and sanctity (if that's what it is) without dressing her as a nun. Hannibal On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:54 AM Quitslund, Beth <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I want to first sincerely thank everyone who has contributed, and then be > a pedant. > > > > This has been a fascinating discussion, and I am hoping at some point > later to be able to go back over it and digest it thoroughly. As it expands > to more and more topics, however, I am increasingly aware of the sheer > quantity of careful scholarship that we have both repeated and ignored. > David W-O is quite right to remind us that, e.g., Lewis weighed in on > physicality in the House of Holiness. I’m particularly aware of the long > history of responses to that passage only because I’ve contributed some and > thus read many of the others. I also know that I don’t know enough of the > critical literature on many other specific aspects of the poem to weigh in > with any confidence on them. > > > > At the risk of being a slightly damp blanket which is nevertheless quite > moved by the excitement of the discussion and also inclined to abuse > metaphors: I wonder if non-footnoted list kinds of discussions might be > *most* useful for areas for 1) areas where we feel fairly sure there is > not a body of recent/continuing criticism or 2) to keep revisiting the Big > Questions about and in the poem that motivate so many of us to read it. > > > > And I am prepared to be corrected. > > > > Beth > > > > OHIO UNIVERSITY > Graduate College > > > > Beth Quitslund > Interim Associate Dean > > Associate Professor of English > > RTEC 220 > Ohio University > Athens OH 45701-2979 > T: 740.593.9759 > [log in to unmask] > <https://mail.ohio.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=9d8a8307c9a84aec800a1e268531dda7&URL=mailto%3aquitslun%40ohio.edu> > > > > *From:* Sidney-Spenser Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> *On > Behalf Of *David Wilson-Okamura > *Sent:* Saturday, July 21, 2018 9:40 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: :“Add faith vnto your force” (FQ 1.i.19.3) > > > > Random interjections: > > > > 1. The New Jerusalem is female; in Rev. 21:2, 9-11 a bride and in Gal. > 4:26 a mother. > > > > 2. We are not the first to wonder about the physicality of penance in the > House of Holiness. Lewis, in 1936, refers to a discussion that is already > ongoing when he submits his analysis, quoted below from the complete etext > of *The Allegory of Love* at archive.org, > https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.170836: > > > > Critics have talked as if there were a fatal discrepancy between > > Spenser’s spiritual pretensions and the actual content of > > his poetry. He has been represented as a man who preached > > Protestantism while his imagination remained on the side > > of Rome; or again, as a poet entirely dominated by the [522] > > senses who believed himself to be an austere moralist. > > These are profound misunderstandings. > > > > The first — that of unconscious or involuntary Roman > > Catholicism — may be answered pretty shortly. It is quite > > true that Una is dressed (in her exile) like a nun, that the > > House of Holinesse is like a conventual house, that Pen- > > aunce dwells there with a whip, and that Contemplation, > > like the hermit of Book Six, resembles a Catholic recluse. > > It is equally true that we can find similarly Catholic imagery > > in Bunyan ; and I know a man in our own time who > > wrote what he intended to be a general apologetic alle- > > gory for 'all who profess and call themselves Christians', > > and was surprised to find it both praised and blamed as a de- > > fence of Rome. It would appear that all allegories whatever > > are likely to seem Catholic to the general reader, and > > this phenomenon is worth investigation. In part, no doubt, > > it is to be explained by the fact that the visible and tangible > > aspects of Catholicism are medieval, and therefore steeped > > in literary suggestion. But is this all? Do Protestant > > allegorists continue as in a dream to use imagery so likely > > to mislead their readers without noticing the danger or > > without better motive than laziness for incurring it ? By > > no means. The truth is not that allegory is Catholic, but > > that Catholicism is allegorical. Allegory consists in giving > > an imagined body to the immaterial ; but if, in each case, > > Catholicism claims already to have given it a material > > body, then the aUegorist’s symbol will naturally resemble > > that material body. The whip of Penaunce is an excellent > > example. No Christian ever doubted that repentance > > involved 'penaunce' and 'whips' on the spiritual plane: it > > is when you come to material whips — to Tartuffe’s disci- > > pline in his closet — that the controversy begins. It is the > > same with the ‘House’ of Holinesse. No Christian doubts > > that those who have offered themselves to God are cut > > off as if by a wall from the World, are placed under a > > regula vitae and ‘laid in easy bed’ by ‘meek Obedience’ ; > > but when the wall becomes one of real bricks and mortar, > > and the Rule one in real ink, superintended by disciplinary > > officials and reinforced (at times) by the power of the > > State, then we have reached that sort of actuality which > > Catholics aim at and Protestants deliberately avoid. In- > > deed, this difference is the root out of which all other > > differences between the two religions grow. The one sus- > > pects that ah spiritual gifts are falsely claimed if they > > cannot be embodied in bricks and mortar, or official posi- > > tions, or institutions: the other, that nothing retains its > > spirituality if incarnation is pushed to that degree and in > > that way. The difference about Papal infallibility is simply > > a form of this. The proper corruptions of each Church > > tell the same tale. When Catholicism goes bad it becomes > > the world-old, world-wide religio of amulets and holy > > places and priestcraft : Protestantism, in its corresponding > > decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes. Catho- > > licism is accused of being much too like all the other > > religions ; Protestantism of being insufficiently like a reli- > > gion at all. Hence Plato, with his transcendent Forms, is > > the doctor of Protestants; Aristotle, with his immanent > > Forms, the doctor of Catholics. Now allegory exists, so > > to speak, in that region of the mind where the bifurcation > > has not yet occurred; for it occurs only when we reach > > the material world. In the world of matter. Catholics and > > Protestants disagree as to the kind and degree of incarna- > > tion or embodiment which we can safely try to give to the > > spiritual ; but in the world of imagination, where allegory > > exists, unlimited embodiment is equally approved by > > both. Imagined buildings and institutions which have > > a strong resemblance to the actual buildings and institu- > > tions of the Church of Rome, will therefore appear, and > > ought to appear, in any Protestant allegory. If the alle- > > gorist knows his business their prevalence will rather mean > > that the allegory is not Catholic than that it is. For > > allegory is idem in alio. Only a bungler, like Deguileville, > > would introduce a monastery into his poem if he were > > really -writing about monasticism. When Spenser writes > > about Protestant sanctity he gives us something like a [324] > > convent: when he is really talking about the conventual > > life he gives us Abessa and Corceca. If I might, without > > irreverence, twist the words of an important (and very > > relevant) Protestant article, I would say that a Catholic > > interpretation of The Faerie Queene 'overthroweth the > > nature of an allegory.' Certainly, a Catholic reader anxious > > to do justice to this great Protestant poem, would be very > > ill advised to read it in that way. Here, as in more impor- > > tant matters, frontier courtesies do not help ; it is at their > > fiery cores that the two faiths are most nearly in sympathy. > > > > -- > > Dr. David Wilson-Okamura http://virgil.org > [log in to unmask] > > Professor of English Virgil reception, discussion, > documents, &c > > East Carolina University Sparsa et neglecta coegi. -- Claude > Fauchet > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the SIDNEY-SPENSER list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SIDNEY-SPENSER&A=1 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the SIDNEY-SPENSER list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SIDNEY-SPENSER&A=1 > -- Hannibal Hamlin Professor of English The Ohio State University Author of *The Bible in Shakespeare*, now available through all good bookshops, or direct from Oxford University Press at http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199677610.do 164 Annie & John Glenn Ave., 421 Denney Hall Columbus, OH 43210-1340 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the SIDNEY-SPENSER list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SIDNEY-SPENSER&A=1