True, Tom. I'm not sure if your question about Stubbs is a query or a
reminder that he cried "God save the queen!." For those who have
forgotten, though: he went on writing but at one point signed himself
"Stubb" (ho ho) and also a diminutive, I forget how it's spelled, of
the Roman (Mutuis) "Scaevola"--"Leftie." Forgive any misspellings. Anne.
On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Herron, Thomas wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> There's also Lucifera the maiden queen in Bk I.
>
> One can pander with one hand and criticize --complain-- with the
> other. We all do it; the trick is to calculate the strength of your
> position and time your critique, if a sharp one, to best benefit
> your faction, those who will rush to your defense and make sure you
> get land and a pension 10 years later for a sharp attack which
> momentarily shames you. I doubt Spenser ever acted in rogue or
> completely irrational fashion (but who knows?). My father (who
> wouldn't likely vote Republican anyway, at least not in the last 10
> or 40 or 144 years) said he would never vote for Bob Dole for
> president in 1994 because he remembers what a hatchet man Dole was
> in the '70s for his party. But that certainly didn't hurt Dole's
> future prospects.
>
> What happened to Stubbs after he lost his hand? --Tom
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Joel Davis [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Spenser as (unnecessary?) panderer/flatterer
>
> 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
|