Edmund Spenser's poetry - TORTURE to read!

My university syllabus featured 16th century English poetry last semester - and we got Sidney, Spenser and Donne. While Donne at least provided some variety and some space for interpretation, love poetry by Sidney and Spenser was pure torture. I know it's part of the 'Petrarchan tradition' to whine and moan about love and the beloved -- for like, 20 or more sonnets, repetitively -- but what the hell is the point in studying this?

The intro to Spenser's 'Epithalamion' written by respected critics claims it's an absolute 'masterpiece' - whereas all I see is some interesting supernatural metaphors (references to greek gods etc) and a buttload of repetition (it's like, by the end of the 20th sonnet - it's enough! I get it, Spenser, you love the woman and she's awesome - enough already!)

I don't understand why they sometimes include pointless crap in the undergraduate syllabus - I don't see how studying Petrarchan love poetry in any way contributes to my understanding of literature. Any explanations you guys can offer me for this? Am I just being facile?

Epithalamion isn't a sonnet sequence though. Maybe you're confusing it with the Amoretti?

As to how reading sonnets contributes to understanding literature, well sonnets are literature.

How are the Amoretti or the Epithalamion "pointless"... or rather any more (or less) "pointless" than any other literature? Perhaps you don't grasp the fact that the "point" in literature is not rushing forth to the end where all (hopefully) will be revealed, but rather the "point" is to enjoy the experience... rather like life itself. Personally, I love Spenser... and the Epithalamion is among my favorite poems.

Torture? You are looking at the densest and probably the most scholarly bard in English before Milton. The Faerie Queene is a sort of middle-late Renaissance synthesis, bringing religion, literature, politics and philosophy to a sort of summarized epic. Of course, you have just started, and are probably reading the Norton volume of Spenser, which is hardly fitting. Get yourself the Longman edition of Spenser's Faerie Queene and work through it, you will realize it is so layered and complex that it takes ages to get through. It is like a sort of Joyce's Ulysses for the 16th century.

As for his love poetry, it is beautifully written and follows, with many innovations, trends of the time. Of course, he also innovates widely with his use of Platonic ideas and thought, especially in the Four Hymns, which you have not read. The Amoretti and Epithalameon are his more accessible works, but they actually construct crafty narratives and links between themselves, and feature some of the most delicate and poetic language of the age.

Then again, some people just do not "get" poetry. If you were to call his Shepperd's Calendar torture, then maybe we could begin (the language is undoubtedly torturous at times, though not without point). But you are talking about probably his simplest and most accessible of his works.

I was going to reply, but stluke and JBI pretty much covered everything I had to say.

Surely one is allowed torture now and again. Reading is not for the faint hearted or is it?
And no you are not being facile. You are simply posting your feelings about literature that is not within your grasp and this is not because it is your fault.
It is simply that some literature remains hard to bite.
Poetry has a sound and each sound is defined according to our hearing and what we enjoy listening to.
A bit like music. There is heavy metal and then there is classical and there is pop and so on and so forth.
I can't stand heavy metal. I am not being facile I am just saying I do not get the heaviness and screeching in music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raaksha

My university syllabus featured 16th century English poetry last semester - and we got Sidney, Spenser and Donne. While Donne at least provided some variety and some space for interpretation, love poetry by Sidney and Spenser was pure torture. I know it's part of the 'Petrarchan tradition' to whine and moan about love and the beloved -- for like, 20 or more sonnets, repetitively -- but what the hell is the point in studying this?

The intro to Spenser's 'Epithalamion' written by respected critics claims it's an absolute 'masterpiece' - whereas all I see is some interesting supernatural metaphors (references to greek gods etc) and a buttload of repetition (it's like, by the end of the 20th sonnet - it's enough! I get it, Spenser, you love the woman and she's awesome - enough already!)

I don't understand why they sometimes include pointless crap in the undergraduate syllabus - I don't see how studying Petrarchan love poetry in any way contributes to my understanding of literature. Any explanations you guys can offer me for this? Am I just being facile?

---

It is not torture. Petrarch wrote for popes and cardinals. It is a sick, ridiculos Roman Catholic fantasy. The stupid thing is torture only if you take it seriously and try to get something out of it. Realize that only a few fools give it importance.

It depends what you think your understanding of literature will be. It's good to have a wide knowledge of literature, even if it is an era you aren't particularly fond of. Perhaps you could read up some more on the culture/history to get a bit of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

It depends what you think your understanding of literature will be. It's good to have a wide knowledge of literature, even if it is an era you aren't particularly fond of. Perhaps you could read up some more on the culture/history to get a bit of context.

---

But I, for example, am very fond of this era, and precisely because of that, I agree with Raaksha. There is so much to explore and so little time to do it. Why would I want to read a foolish ghost like Petrarch? I'll read something a lot more influential to progress. Or i'll read something that's not ridiculously entangling in stupidity posing as important history after we already finished with the Roman Catholic bologni. What's left of Italy that's still good today is some of the food. An even in that area one has to carefully choose because there is too much and time is precious.

1 can of Amy's organic tomato soup
1 can of tuna in olive oil
1 tbsp of dry regular oregano
1 tbsp of dry greek oregano
8 oz of 100% durum semolina penne rigati

boil the penne according to instructions but leave it really al dente
drain well
put the tuna in a pot with the oregano and one more tbsp of olive oil and cook for two minutes
pour the can of tomato soup and heat until it bubbles a little
pour that mixture over the penne and heat well over very low heat without cooking it
cover and let stand for five minutes
stir well, cover and let stan for three more minutes

What an intellectual experience. You'll feel Tuscany at its best.

have fun

It was part of a time when there was no television and other distractions. And with that, both words and ideas were relished.

One solution to appreciating such works, then, is to remove such distractions temporarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralfyman

It was part of a time when there was no television and other distractions. And with that, both words and ideas were relished.

One solution to appreciating such works, then, is to remove such distractions temporarily.

---

Take it out fast again. But please live the intellectual experience: the Tuscan recipe.

1 can of Amy's organic tomato soup
1 can of tuna in olive oil
1 tbsp of dry regular oregano
1 tbsp of dry greek oregano
8 oz of 100% durum semolina penne rigati

boil the penne according to instructions but leave it really al dente
drain well
put the tuna in a pot with the oregano and one more tbsp of olive oil and cook for two minutes
pour the can of tomato soup and heat until it bubbles a little
pour that mixture over the penne and heat well over very low heat without cooking it
cover and let stand for five minutes
stir well, cover and let stan for three more minutes

What an intellectual experience. You'll feel Tuscany at its best.

have fun

[QUOTE=JBI;1192014]Torture? You are looking at the densest and probably the most scholarly bard in English before Milton. The Faerie Queene is a sort of middle-late Renaissance synthesis, bringing religion, literature, politics and philosophy to a sort of summarized epic.

Honestly, I found The Faerie Queene to be a more challenging text that Milton's PL. The layers of allegory and the overlapping narratives that Spenser constructs requires an extensive familiarity with political, religious controversies of the Elizabethan court, along with a working knowledge of the Arthurian cycles and humoral medicine. Modern readers of PL are at least familiar with Satan, whereas you could spend hours trying to explain to a lay person who is Duessa, Archimago, Artegall, or Britomar. I suppose it all comes to down to which is more confine to his particular historical moment. Milton's theodicy speaks universally - the whole explaining the ways of God to man thing; Spenser's FQ disguises political commentary in dense allegorical, Medieval Romance.

The same could be said of any pair. But Milton was undoubtedly more scholarly than Spenser. Spenser was just more of a synthesis. Either way, Milton was highly influenced by Spenser, and even tried to write a sort of copy-cat epic before abandoning it.

Even so, Spenser is not a bad author, and the works mentioned by the original poster are far more accessible than the Faerie Queene, or even the Shepherd's Calendar.

I agree with Milton's borrowing from Spenser, particularly when it comes to Paradise Regained. Undoubtedly the initial appearance of Satan in Milton's sequel finds its roots in Spenser's Archimago.