Talk:The Faerie Queene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to the WikiProject Poetry. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. Visit the Poetry Portal.
	Current activities:	Shakespeare's Sonnets - Blake's Mythology - Jacopone da Todi - List of years in poetry
	Poetry stubs:	Finnish poetry - Golden Age of Russian Poetry - Italian poetry Edit

Would it be good to include a canto summary at the end of this article by way of stating, for each book, the four-line argument such as found in Italic textThe Faerie QueeneItalic text for each canto? example: Book I: Canto I: The Patron of true Holinesse,/Foule Errour doth defeate:/ Hypocrisie him to entrape,/ Doth to his home entreate.--CurtisI 00:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I waited for somewhat less than half a month and got no reply on this page one way or another, so I decided to go through with it. All the spelling is correct, despite that sometimes the argument might do something like have "Una" spelled "Vna" in one or two cantos. I meant to reproduce the canto arguments as exactly as possible, so I didn't add any notes or change the spelling or errors.--CurtisI 20:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

Just from perusing the article, I see a few items that may need some more research.

Being somewhat familiar with Renaissance literature, I would say that The Faerie Queene did not successfully garner Queen Elizabeth's patronage, as it aspired. Even fellow poets, such as Sir Phillip Sidney, in his Defense of Poesy thought the language of the poems was too archaic and was contrary to the classical greek tradition. One might note that Spenser intended this strange emulation of Chaucer to add a extra flair to the works. Nonetheless, the Faerie Queene was a huge success among the public, satisfying the "sonnet craze," so to speak, of the 1500s.

The interpretation in this article is sketchy at best. For example, Arthur is meant to be the perfect example of the ideal virtues and would not, thus, need perfection. I would disagree that the chief characters are already perfect exemplars of virtue, and anyone who read the work carefully would perceive these subtle themes of change. In addition, some have even suggested slight political criticism of Queen Elizabeth, despite Spenser's intent of gaining her favor, and her court in Redcrosse's run in at the "House of Pride."

Spenser's Protestant nature is apparent in the many anti-Catholic symbols in the works, such as Duessa the witch wearing a pope-like crown and the monster Error spewing Catholic propaganda.

It is apparent that many people do not see the beauty in Spenser's creation. It is unique in its choice of language and its dynamic, as opposed to unchanging allegorical, characters, e.g. the bad guys don't always collaborate. (Though Archimago is easy to predict in his actions.) A summary of The Faerie Queene needs to address these critical issues.

As is mentioned above, just some thoughts, not gospel truth.

I liked Faerie Queene a lot myself. However, I am really not sure if one should place in things like "this work is beautiful for such and such a reason". It should perhaps be noted that the bad guys don't always collaborate, as this would highlight an interesting part of the work and this would be a simple statement of fact that could be easily supported with examples. I myself have tried to do little interpretation in this article and just tried to provide some supplimentary material (lengthy, granted) for the reader who was interested in the work. If you want to expand the article than that would be great for it but remember to do so to improve the article as opposed to placing opinion in it. I have read the work carefully and I am not sure that the slight changes all of them undergo by existing prevents them from being the exemplars of a particular virtue. Redcrosse undergoes dramatic changes (look at him right before he was in prison and right afterward to see a difference). Guyon has to be chastised by his companion, the Palmer (Guyon is chastised by the Palmer when he is looking at the two naked women playing in the fountain). Britomart goes from, when young, a girl indifferent to love to one who sets out on a whole journey because of it. She becomes violently jealous (meaning, some of her thoughts turn to violence and her agitated actions betray that she is not sedate owing to thoughts concerning Artegall's activites). She eventually calms down, though, and one might say that she learns to live chastely in love without the blemish of jealousy (which, I add, is depicted as a vice in this work). But is Calidore really any less courteous in the beginning of his book than at the end? Even his stay among the shepherds demonstrates that he maintains his courtesy regardless of the rank of the person he is dealing with. A hero may depict the importance of a virtue by, among other ways, either failing because of a lack of it or by showing constant examples of it in his conduct. Thus the various heroes serve, in one way or another, as exemplars of a particular virtue. Arthur is really never shown to be flawed but this is supposed to take place before Arthur was "king, the image of a braue knight, perfected in the twelue morall vertues". The tense in the letter to Raleigh allows for some question as to what Spenser thought Arthur was going to be. Furthermore, from what is said in the proem of Book V, it is arguable that the language of The Faerie Queene is written, not in the modern way, but in the language of old because virtue, which is what the book treats of, has been corrupted in popular appreciation since then and Spenser is returning to the true virtues of old and so is signalling his return to the values of old by speaking in the manner of old, even as he is relating the virtues and subject matter from the idealized past (Arthur is generally acknowledged, I think, to have dwelled in a period of time before Spenser's). No offense meant to you when I say this, but I think saying that Spenser wrote The Faerie Queene in a manner reminiscent of Chaucer (very late Middle English, practically Early Modern) simply for the sake of flair is shallow. I agree the article needs expanding and that The Faerie Queene is a beautiful work of allegory. I, however, think interpretation should be left to the reader and that the beauty of The Faerie Queene is best expressed by the work itself and by none other.--CurtisI 10:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal tone

This article really needs some work, preferably by someone who is an expert on Spenser and Renaissance poetry. Just to highlight what I'm talking about, here's one sentence from the character description of Artegall:

"Britomart often goes around so armored as that she is presumed a man, which leads to humorous episodes in which Amoret in Book IV, Canto I is deadly afraid of being raped by the knight that has saved her (many episodes are humorous because the reader knows the whole story and can appreciate the irony, which the characters cannot) and the Lady of Delight from Book III, canto I, quickly being taken with great lust for this knight (not even so unarmed as to betray that the knight is a female warrior) simply because this knight seems to ignore her beauty."

Hunh? At the very least, the whole article needs to be copyedited and the tone made more scholarly.--Ibis3 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just put in over an hour's work to fix the tone problems, and I haven't even touched the stupid character descriptions yet! I deleted large chunks that seemed unsalvageable, but anyone who can either bring back some of that material in an academic way or just replace it with some meaningful content, please do. Also, I'm not an expert on Spenser, so any Renaissance scholars out there, please check this thing for accuracy. Feeeshboy 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's so much better! The only thing I would suggest bringing back in some form is the positive or encouraging aspects of "Reading the Epic Today". And good luck to anyone tackling the character descriptions. They are a mess.--Ibis3 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished with character edits for now. I'd like to add something more positive about "reading the epic today," although I'm not sure how much encouragement is pertinent for an encyclopedia. Anyway, I think the informal tone problem is pretty much cleared up--any objections to removing the tag? Feeeshboy 06:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Feeshboy. You've done a really great job in cleaning this up. I'll remove the tag. I might do some minor edits on the character list at some point. I'm actually reading the book (Book IV to be exact) right now, so I have some ideas about things that need to be amended or added.Ibis3 11:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about the other point--the 'reading the epic today' section. If it's unencyclopedic (which I'm prepared to grant, especially as, for Wikipedia, it seems a bit too much like original research), it should be removed entirely. It may be a relevant section to let remain however, but if it's kept, it should be much more neutral. As it is, it sounds like an advertisement to avoid reading it.Ibis3 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)