Spenser's Art of War

Spenser's Art of War: Chivalric Allegory, Military Technology, and the Elizabethan MockHeroic Sensibility Author(s): Michael West
Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 654-704 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2861885 . Accessed: 20/10/2011 09:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Spenser's Art of War: Chivalric Allegory, Military Technology, and the Elizabethan Mock-Heroic Sensibility
by MICHAEL WEST
n the medieval romances single combat was the knightly norm.

The Italian chivalric epics sought to adapt this convention to the ideals of the Renaissance courtier. In II Cortegiano, Frederico Fregoso explains "that where the Courtyer is at skirmishe, or assault, or battaile upon the land, or in such other places of enterprise, he ought to worke the matter wisely in seperating himself from the multitude, and undertake his notable and bould feates which he hath to doe, with as little company as he can. '9 But such displays of panache had little place in the massed infantry tactics that dominated the actual battlefields of the sixteenth century. It was disciplined self-restraint that made the Swiss and Spanish pike phalanxes so formidable, relegating cavalry to secondary importance. The Italian courtierknights had been rudely humbled, after all, when Charles XII invaded Italy in 1494 and deployed his excellent artillery. Moreover, the ascendancy of siege warfare made chivalry increasingly irrelevant to sixteenth-century tactics. Militarily speaking, the period from 1450 to 534 was "to some extent an aberration, where the conditions of war offered an unusually fertile soil for some expressions of the cult of chivalry. After 1534 the battle went into rapid decline and with it chivalry entered a phase of decay from
which it never recovered.
"2
Between
1534 and 163
"the major bat-
tle almost disappeared from Western Europe." The developing technology of angle-bastion fortification restored the advantage to the defensive, and war became a series of sieges, "with battle, when it occurred at all, as subsidiary to the major business of investing or
'Baldassare tr. Sir Thomas Hoby, ed. Walter Castiglione, The Bookof theCourtier, Raleigh (London, 1900) 113. All early texts are cited with normalizedtypographyand expandedcontractions.Earlierversions of this paperwere presentedduring 1986at the at the meeting of conferenceof the RenaissanceSociety in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania; the West VirginiaShakespeare andRenaissance Associationin Morgantown, West Virginia;andat the Huntington Libraryin SanMarino, California.I am gratefulto my audiences for helpful suggestions. in England, 2MalcolmVale, War andChivalry:Warfare andAristocratic Culture France,
and Burgundy at the End of the Middle Ages (Athens, Ga., 1981) I74.
[654]
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
655
relieving fortresses."3 Such patterns of warfare reflected not only technological advances in fortification and fire-power, but "the extension north of the Alps of military entrepreneurship on the Italian model and with it the natural desire to conserve expensive plant. Cautious professional competence took the place of the quest for glory in the planning and conduct of campaigns; the caution of men who intended to see their investment in armed forces pay off in wealth, political influence, and land." But the pay-off never quite materialized. Paradoxically, such limited and unglamorous warfare also seemed unprecedentedly nasty and pointless: "All this . . . explains why, for over a hundred years, warfare in Europe was so prolonged and indecisive; smouldering away like wet wood . .. never acting as a catalyst establishing a new pattern of political order." Like many episodes in the Faerie Queene, Spenser's capsule history of "the land which warlike Britons now possesse" reflects the Renaissance's considerable moral ambivalence about the activity of warfare.4 Similar ambivalence characterizes Spenser's attempt to reconcile traditional heroic virtue with the demands of military leadership. In avowing that "the generall end therefore of all the booke is to fashion a gentleman or noble person in vertuous and gentle discipline," Spenser assumed that humanism would mold not simply ideal men but ideal leaders, who could serve the state equally well in peace or war. But in reviewing his epic predecessors, he noted that the ideal man was not always an ideal leader: "I have followed all the antique Poets historicall, first Homere, who in the persons of Agamemnon and Vlysses hath ensampled a good governour and a vertuous man, the one in his Ilias, the other in his Odysseis: then Virgil, whose like intention was to doe in the person of Aeneas: after him Ariosto comprised them both in his Orlando: and lately Tasso dissevered them againe, and formed both parts in two persons."5 Initially he planned to emulate Virgil and Ariosto by fusing the ideal hero and governor in Arthur, devoting twelve books to perfecting him in "the twelve private morall vertues, as Aristotle hath devised . which ifI finde to be well accepted, I may be perhaps encoraged,
3Michael Howard, War in European History (Oxford, 1976) 26-27, 34-37. 4FQ, II.x.25; I cite Spenser from the VariorumWorks,ed. Edwin A. Greenlaw et al. (Baltimore, 1932-1949). On Spenserian ambivalence about warfare see esp. Michael West, "Spenser and the Renaissance Ideal of Christian Heroism," PMLA, 88 (1973): and "Warfare," in The Spenser Encyclopedia, ed. A. C. Hamilton et al. (TorIOI3-32; onto, forthcoming) 5"A Letter of the Authors," in Works 1:167.
656
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
to frame the other part of politicke vertues in his person, after that hee came to be king." As Spenser saw that he could never realize this grandiose scheme, he accelerated the shift to a public ethic. After three books devoted to the private moral virtues of holiness, temperance, and chastity, the titular virtues of the next three booksfriendship, justice, and courtesy-all characterize the hero in a social context and locate him in an increasingly politicized Faerie lond. Although the titular virtues of his epic form a rather inadequate moral arsenal for a commander-in-chief, the Vewe of the present state oflrelande demonstrates that Spenser was never so naive as to fancy that his employer Lord Grey could pacify Ireland by relying on them alone. Whether Spenser actually saw combat has been debated inconclusively; but improving the performance of the English army is certainly a central concern of his. Fostered by bards whom he abominates, the warlike disposition of Irish outlaws precludes civilizing them simply by legal reforms; they must be crushed militarily, he insists. Like Lord Grey, he advocates troop increases for war a outrance and is skeptical of Burghley's policy of temporizing with Irish rebels like Tyrone. Among the specific army reforms that he calls for are promoting officers from within the ranks on Irish experience and merit, establishing an independent paymaster to guard against false muster rolls, and curbing a colonel's power to court-martial without convoking a jury of fellow-soldiers. Warmly defending Lord Grey against the charge of undue cruelty occasioned by his massacre of Spanish prisoners at Smerwick (albeit on rather technical legal grounds, arguing that their surrender had been unconditional and without promise of quarter), Spenser strikes some as a disciple of Machiavelli, whom he cites.6 Both authors, for example, appreciate the strategic utility of fanmine, the devastating effects of which Spenser graphically describes. His conviction that success in war "useth Comonlie to be accordinge to the Justnes of the Cause" (Vewe 3582-83) probably owes more to Jean Bodin than to Machiavelli, but the author of the Vewe certainly strikes one as a toughminded observer of military affairs. Though Spenser's hawkish policy has been often criticized as discordanc with the Christian humanism of the Faerie Queene, it was this hardnosed strategy car6With Edwin A. Greenlaw, "The Influence of Machiavelli on Spenser," ModernPhilology, (I908): 187-202, cp. H. S. V. Jones, "Spenser's Defense of Lord Grey," Univ. of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, No. 3 (1919): 1-75, which stresses Bodin's influence. See also Sheila T. Cavanagh, "Such Was Irena's Countenance: Ireland in Spenser's Prose and Poetry," Texas Studies in Language and Literature, (i986):24-50.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
657
ried out by generals like Mountjoy, Strafford, and Cromwell that finally pacified Ireland-at least for the next three centuries. Yet there are indications that Spenser was an armchair tactician. 7 The most salient sign occurs when Eudoxus queries Irenius about the Irishman's horsemanship, "his Shanke pillion without stirrops/ his mannier ofmnountinge his fashion ofridinge his Chardginge of his speare aloafte above hande." Though admitting that Irish tack differs radically from English, Irenius defends the Irish practice: "Neither is the same yet Counted an Uncomelye manner of Ridinge for I have hearde some great warriours saie that. . . they neuer sawe a more Cornlye horseman then the Irisheman, nor that Commethe one more bravelye in his Chardge neither is his manner of mountinge unsernelye though he lacke Stirrops but more readye then with stirrops." Eudoxus concludes fairly enough that "it semethe then that ye finde no fault with this mnanner of Ridinge" (1Vewe21932203).
Justifying his sobriquet of"peaceful one," here Spenser's normal spokesman (like his interlocutor) naively ignores the military function of the stirrup, which enables a knight to couch his lance underarm and brace to absorb an enemy's impact. As the leading military historian of the Irish campaigns observes, "the shock of thrusting a lance against an opponent's armour when both horses were moving at a fair pace would certainly unhorse a man without stirrups." Because the Irish "rode without stirrups, they were not fitted for shock action and dared not face English horse except at the most favorable odds; for the English not only had stirrups but also commonly rode much heavier horses."8 Their plate armor made them superior to light Irish cavalry even when mailed, and to the unarmored Irish
7According to Alexander B. Judson's Life, when the privy council nominated Spenser to be sheriff of Cork in 1598, it described him as "a man . not unskilful or without experience in the service of the wars" (Variorum Works, 8:200). But in the Vewe his spokesman Irenius disclaims personal knowledge of garrison tactics, saying, "I am noe marshall mao" (3718-19), and his apparent military inexperience is emphasized by Roland M. Smith, "The Irish Background of Spenser's View, "Journalof English and Germanic Philology, 42 (1943): 499-5 5. 8Cyril Falls, Elizabeth's Irish Wars(London, I950) 69. Philippe Contamine, Warin the Middle Ages, tr. MichaelJones (London, 1984) 179-184, reviews controversy over the For further evidence of Spenser's naivete see Allan H. Gilbert, "Spenserian stirrup. " Armor, PILA, 67 (1942): 98 -87. Derricke's woodcut is reproduced from the unique illustrated copy in the Edinburgh University Library by their kind permission. I am grateful to the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities for electing me an Honorary Fellow during 1987 to pursue research on this topic and to my colleagues there for helpful suggestions.
658
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
if b)balur ontebemou'e,crtat~.3ltl~Otito taktq jFo2 ourfouerigm lfl btaelp neinc lti, fiticb Doe beaipf oo p? nott)e rmctl! imprtag6,no) g?baee,t f teoftloe
ftla
br.
roo Pe;Lst f tecroohecrbbcttaUct bctl ibfoe, pet bO,ittrtfuc Ao0
~ tle 1nal tateo, 5Ifo Mars ti, of tTalptroutoaseb t aawtj. Coplutcethetbatei of taclYbowne,tlaft slp p ar~.t tblte, pCe tlegm ltonfob6eltt ,b riour offba oe *e
Canmae im to teuole tfettng, ti^ ono)pbt pb tattame (Ilt 3etenotSp3cWtB,-BapntetWleoifnr.a.
nti tlO bporluauemat. rfameto
...e. . t..
it i mioprntfiwt,nt moftt attf
bta
,l
to be Wie tB
and Irish cavalry collide. Reproduced by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
FIG. I -English
footman, the kerne, they were almost invulnerable. When on one occasion a body of seventy kerne stood up against a charge by six English horse, the event was reported as highly unusual. Even without full chivalric armor English cavalry routinely routed enemies who outnumbered them better than ten-to-one. In a woodcut for John Derricke's Imageof Irelande(I58I) the distinctive Irish shank pillion is clearly renderedwhile the defeated Irishhorsemen perforce brandish their spears aloft. In the background the unarmored kerne flee from the English troops' firepower while the Irish piper lies dead (see Fig. i). The cut depicts the English forces as overwhelming; however, "a few troopers charging at the heels of a daring-but it must also be noted, a well-armored commander. . . often achieved amazing results" (Falls 345). Such feats undoubtedly made an impression on Spenser; but he apparently appreciatedneither their dependence on superior military technology employed against a relatively primitive foe, nor the degree to which that technology itself was outdated on the Continent. The guerilla warfare of the Irish marches made possible military anachronism that would have
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
659
proved grotesquely out of place in the increasingly mathematical siege warfare of the Lowlands. Spenser's nostalgia for the niounted knight obliquely reflects the essential backwardness of Elizabethan armies, among the last in Europe to abandon the lance. Though single combat is the norm in the FaerieQueene, it is instructive to consider passages where Spenser depicts a knight confronting massed enemies, or two knights endeavoring to concert their efforts, or a leadercommanding forces of his own. To rescue his Pastorella Sir Calidore slays an entire band of brigands. How? Disguising himself as a shepherd, but having "underneath, him armed
privily" (VI.xi.36), Calidore introduces himself to some of the thieves and craftily contrives to have them lead him back to their den. When they all fall asleep, "Sir Calidore him arm'd, as he thought best, /Having of late by diligent inquest,/Provided him a sword of meanest sort:/With which he streight went to the Captaines nest" in a separate cave (VI.xi.42). Note the scrupulosity with which Spenser insists that the only sword that disguise permitted him to carry was a very poor one. Since he is already supposedly armored, this further arming must mean that he picked up some ax-like weapon in the den. By its aid, apparently, "Calidore with huge resistlesse might,/The dores assayled, and the locks vpbrast," a feat less readily imaginable with sword alone. Presumably unarmored, the Captain, "Into the entrance ran: where the bold knight/Encountring him with small resistance slew" (VI.xi.43). Calidore is overjoyed to find his Pastorella safe. But
now by this, with noyse of late uprore, The hue and cry was raysed all about; And all the Brigants flocking in great store, Unto the cave gan preasse, nought having dout Of that was doen, and entred in a rout. But Calidore in th' entry close did stand, And entertayning them with courage stout, Still slew the formost, that came first to hand, So long till all the entry was with bodies mand. (VI.xi.46)
Then when "no more could nigh to him approach,/He breath'd his sword, and rested him till day" (VI.xi.47). Spenser strives mightily to keep this feat plausible in military terms. Unlike Calidore the brigands have no armor. Their leader is
66o
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
dead, a night attack discourages coordinated effort in any event, and Calidore has a strong defensive position that forces them to assault him individually. Indeed, it may seem strange that he abandons it with the dawn: "Through the dead carcases he made his way,/ Mongst which he found a sword of better say,/With which he forth went into th' open light:/Where all the rest for him did ready stay" (VI.xi.47). But this tactic too is justifiable. A good offense is now Calidore's best defence. As a lone warrior opposing a band he cannot withstand a concerted siege for long; there is no way out but forward, and his position weakens with every hour. Were his only thought for himself, he should probably have advanced after his initial success under cover of darkness; but that tactic might not have permitted him to extricate Pastorella. Yielding his defensive edge to risk combat in the open, Calidore understandably grasps at every slender advantage by exchanging the mediocre sword necessitated by his disguise for a better one of the brigands-a shrewdly realistic touch. 9 By the end of combat, however, realism is severely strained. With no advantage but his armor and superior swordsmanship Calidore routs an enormous body of brigands who attack him ferociously together: "So many theeves about him swarming are,/All which do him assayle on every side,/And sore oppresse, ne any him doth spare:/But he doth with his raging brond divide/Their thickest troups, and round about him scattreth wide" (VI. xi.48). How could a determined force large enough to be numbered in troops fail to subdue a knight fighting alone on foot, however valiant, if they attack en masse "with all their might" (VI. xi.47)? Spenser here sounds oddly like Falstaff describing the multiplying rogues in buckram who supposedly waylaid him. Dozens of thieves could swamp a knight and pinion his arms before "he had strowd with bodies all the way" (VI.xi.49). Such prowess is barely conceivable for a lone knight with a well-trained mount like the cavalrymen whom
9To James Nohrnberg's The Analogy of the Faerie Queene (Princeton, I976) I owe much. But his treatment of this passage suggests how even so elegant an allegorist can slight Spenser's epic dimension: "Different ranks merit different courtesies, and Calidore conforms to decorum even when he arms himself to attack the brigands. He provides himself with 'a sword of meanest sort,' and only when victory is in sight does he employ 'a sword of better say' " (708). Should a reader really think that Calidore exchanges weapons out of decorous courtesy? I doubt that this idea occurred to Spenser; but if he did toy with it, or if he wrote in such a fashion elsewhere as to encourage us to do so, then this passage like much else in the poem must be recognized as ludicrous.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
66I
Spenser knew in Ireland. But Calidore is fighting on foot, and Spenser seems unaware of the limitations that this imposes. Massed human bodies have only fitful military reality for him. What results is epic surrealism. The thieves "fled from his wrath, and did themselues convay/Into their caves, their heads from death to hide" (VI. xi. 49). But when Calidore ransacks their caves two stanzas later, they have apparently vanished. Their disappearance yields no particular allegorical meaning, and it is all the more disconcerting in view of the many specific touches with which Spenser has dramatized Calidore's tactical predicament in facing massed foes. Likewise the armor upon which the entire feat depends is only hazily imagined. Calidore's invulnerability to such a band would seem to require extensive chivalric plate, to say nothing of a helmet. Yet a suit sufficient to protect him as this fight assumes could scarcely have been masked from the thieves for several hours beforehand. When he sat down in their cave, there would surely have been an audible clank or two from beneath his "shepheards weeds" (VI.xi. 36), even if only mail were involved. Moreover, it would have exhausted him. British commanders in Ireland were not so naive about what wearing armor actually involves. Although their upper plate normally made mounted English cavalry more heavily armored than their Irish counterparts, even these horsemen discarded full chivalric leg-armor because it was too fatiguing and restricted the mobility necessary for cross-country operations against marauding guerilla tribesmen who were not easy to bring to bay. However, Spenser's description of how Maleger and his troops besiege the castle of Temperance does distill some essential principles of guerilla warfare from his Irish experiences. When Prince Arthur and Sir Guyon first reach the castle, "a thousand villeins round about them swarmed/Out of the rockes and caves adjoyning nye,/Vile caytive wretches, ragged, rude, deformnd,/All threatning death, all in straunge manner arnd." At first they force the two mounted knights to give ground, "but when againe/They gave fresh charge, their forces gan to faile,/Unable their encounter to sustain." The heavier equipment of Arthur and Guyon lets them triumph over amazing odds; the hyperbole here exaggerates an underlying military reality. The only hope of these irregulars lies in the tactic of "their cruell Capitaine," who sought to surround Arthur and Guyon "and overrun to tread them to the ground." But the footmen's very lack of military training keeps them from executing
662
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
such commands effectively, so "the knights with their brightburning blades/Broke their rude troupes, and orders did confound" 3-I 5). These ragged, undisciplined hordes with their rustic (Iix. weaponry resemble the semi-nomadic kerne, who could turn overnight from herders to raiders, then just as easily melt back into the populace. Thus Guyon and Arthur, though masters of the field, find themselves "hewing and slashing at their idle shades;/For though they bodies seeme, yet substance from them fades." Maleger proves invulnerable to conventional tactics. Whenever Arthur slays him, he rises from the ground with renewed fury. Finally Arthur tackles him bare-handed, lifts and strangles him, then throws his body in a lake, so that he is no longer able to draw strength from his mother Earth. This adaptation of the Antaeus myth to historical allegory vividly renders the futility of waging counter-insurgent warfare from a plane of technological superiority and the strategic importance ofinterdicting the rural guerilla's sustenance from the countryside, which the English did brutally but successfully in Ireland with a policy of agrarian devastation. Yet other military aspects of this episode are more bizarre. Pelted with poisoned arrows by the retreating Maleger, Arthur makes the sensible tactical decision "to follow him no more, / ... Untill he quite had spent his perlous store,/And then assayle him fresh, ere he could shift for more" (II.xi. 27). But Maleger is aided by two hags, Impotence and Impatience. Impotence retrieves his spent arrows. When Arthur seeks to bind her, he is suddenly attacked from behind by Impatience, who "him backward overthrew." Maleger immediately piles on also. The three would clearly have killed Arthur "had not his gentle Squire beheld his pain,/And commen to his reskew, ere his bitter bane." Acting rather like a chivalric referee, Tirmias pries off the two hags and holds them at bay, so that Arthur can proceed to deal with Maleger properly in single combat. In a stanza moralizing this event Spenser draws the ultimate lesson "that had not grace thee blest, thou sholdest not survive" (II. xi. 3o). Curiously absent, however, is any sense of the need for military teamwork when facing multiple enemies. Maleger's forces are often a disorganized rabble, yet he and his hags fight more effectively together here than do Arthur and Timias, who simply materializes like a deus ex machina. Likewise, when Arthur and Guyon charged among Maleger's troops, they scarcely acted in concert, nor did either try to cover the other's rear. Their companions Timias and the Palmer
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
663
were not even described as present. The notion of armed allies fighting together has only intermittent appeal for Spenser. Even when Timias helps the wounded Arthur from the battlefield, faint
"through losse of blood" shed in quelling Maleger, this tableau remains unconvincing, for as the two return to Alma's castle the entire horde besieging it - who now could make short work ofthem - has conveniently and characteristically vanished into thin air. In the military dream-world of the Faerie Queene one can dispel bands of terrorists by neutralizing their leader. In the Middle East, alas, that may not work. Indeed, the siege is conceived with grotesque inconsistency. Spenser is unsure whether a besieged castle may safely open its gates. When Arthur and Guyon first appear at the castle, the enemy are nowhere in sight; yet the castle wards, though wholeheartedly friendly, decline to risk opening the gates to admit them, lest the enemy appear and gain entry. Emerging from neighboring rocks and caves, Maleger's hordes suddenly rush the little party, confirming the wisdom of the castle's defensive tactics. Guyon and Arthur must disperse this horde "quite away" before being received into the castle (II.ix. 16). Yet after Guyon has departed on his quest, the siege is renewed even more hotly with "huge artillery,/With which they dayly made most dreadfull battery." For allegorical reasons Maleger's wild hordes are now very carefully organized in twelve troops."Seven of the same against the Castle gate,/In strong entrenchments he did closely place,/Which with incessant force and endlesse hate,/They battered day and night, and entraunce did awate" (II. xi. 6-7). With "wicked engins" the other five troops support the Deadly Sins by assailing the castle's five sensory bulwarks. Though the defense is spirited, the lady Alma understandably feels that "neuer was she in so euill cace." Yet when Arthur at this juncture offers "against that Carle to fight," they happily allow "those gates to be unbar'd" for his sally despite the fact that the enemy forces are now dug in directly before the gates and eager to exploit any opening, since "evermore their wicked Capitaine/Provoked them the breaches to assay" (II.xi.9-I7). Any good tactician would sally from "the back-gate" carefully described in II.x.32; but since Spenser's physiological allegory has equated that with the anus, chivalric dignity apparently forbids Arthur to use the postern. Oddly enough, upon his appearance Maleger's forces make no effort to rush the gate but concentrate upon Arthur. But strangest of
664
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
all is their contradictory nature. As when Arthur arrived at the castle, he rides roughshod over them, "and with his sword disperst the raskall flockes,/Which fled a sunder, and him fell before. ... / The fierce Spumador trode them downe like dockes." This feat invites us to imagine Maleger's forces as a "rascal" mob like the undisciplined Irish kerne capable of being routed by an individual mounted horseman "in glitterand armes . . . dight" (II.xi. 17-I9). But during the siege Maleger's guerrilla troops have been transformed into a modern Renaissance army conducting siege warfare on the continental model, whose plans for entrenched investment reflect a military engineer's careful "dessignment." Their "wicked engins," "batteries," and "artillery" might conceivably be ballistic catapults or rams rather than guns. But when we are told that "euermore their hideous Ordinance/Vpon the Bulwarkes cruelly did play," Spenser's emphasis upon the rapid rate of fire involved suggests that he has cannon in mind. Whether or not this ordnance uses gunpowder, it could never be employed by the wild semi-nomads of a captain whose henchwomen are Impotence and Impatience. Nothing of the sort was employed by the Irish kerne, who serve only sporadically as the models for Maleger's primitive horde. Though by 1596 Tyrone had trained a corps of native musketeers, his dependence on internal lines of communication over bog and mountain discouraged Irish use of cannon, whereas the English could transport them by sea. Essentially "the Irish never possessed any. This was a heavy handicap. It meant that no castle held by the English need ever fall unless it were betrayed, surprised, or starved out, whereas practically no castle could be maintained by the Irish, provided the English could reach the scene with cannon of adequate weight" (Falls 34344). This phantasmal army combining primitive guerilla tactics with formal siege warfare may seem a trivial anomaly to a modern audience, for whom both are equally exotic forms of combat. Our temptation is to explain it away as a superficial narrative incoherence that is unimportant given the underlying unity of the allegory. But to do so is to ignore certain peculiar features of Spenserian narrative, grounded partly in epic conventions. By stretching our imaginations we can imagine a Western movie that might be allegorical. But if the hero of that movie appeared in a plumed helmet and chaps, by no stretch of the imagination could we regard the sight as other than ludicrous, whatever underlying meaning might be involved. Spens-
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
665
er's highly pictorial style often conjures up such grotesque images, and one result is uneasy laughter. Uneasy laughter must characterize our response to much of the Book most specifically devoted to military affairs. At its core lies the relation between its titular hero Artegall and his iron servant Talus. "Powre is the right hand ofJustice truely hight," Spenser explains at one point (V.iv. i) and the entire book develops that theme in social terms. Morally oriented critics have written much about Talus as the embodiment of executive power. But if one must assign a single allegorical meaning to this fascinating figure, perhaps more than anything else he represents the army that a general must use to project ajust foreign policy and the police force that a governor must use to ensure that just laws are obeyed. Artegall himself is usually Spenser's idealized version of his employer Lord Grey, who, as Lord Deputy between 1580-1 584, was both chief executive of the civil government and supreme commander of the Queen's armed forces in Ireland. Talus usually plays a military role: standing sentry duty at night (V.iv.45), mounting an amphibious assault (V.xii.43), capturcollecting military inteling and razing a rebel castle (V.ii.21-28), ligence (V.ii.25), and functioning throughout as Artegall's "gard and gouernment" (V.iv.3). That "his yron flaile . . . thondred" (V.v. 9) suggests that "his strange weapon, never wont in warre" (V.iv.44), represents the impact of firearms on a chivalric milieu unaccustomed to them.Io Rejecting the proffered services of a human squire, Artegall marches through a degenerate world dealing out martial justice in ambiguous solitude: "Ne wight with him but onely Talus went,/They two enough t'encounter an whole Regiment" (V.i. 3o). He knows the full loneliness of command, for Talus
'"See John P. Daly, S. J., "Talus in Spenser's Faerie Queene," Notes & Queries, n.s. 7 (I966): 49. The moral interpretations compiled in the Variorum edition are usefully supplemented by John Erskine Hankins, Source and Meaning in Spenser's Allegory (Oxford, 1971) I71-73. The best discussion of Talus is offered by Nohrnberg 409-25, who develops the iron man's threefold significance as a legal, technological, and military symbol. But he rather slights Talus' military dimension, as is evidenced by his outright misunderstanding of wont in this passage: "Somewhat confusingly Spenser says that Talus does not use his flail in war." Instead of seeing Talus as a military subordinate with some capacity for independent action, he claims that "Talus is basically a slaie." But after arguing that the iron man suggests the Hegelian-Marxist analysis of master-slave relations, he must admit that "Talus' obedience, I hardly need say, is never explicitly characterized in terms of the class relation just described. We must reason back to such a relation from indirect evidence" (409-410).
666
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
is an inhuman companion. Significantly, Talus is most human when separated from Artegall. Bringing the bad news of his master's captivity to Britomart, "the yron man, albe he wanted sense/And sorrowes feeling, yet ... did inly chill and quake" (V. vi. 9). But though his speeches to Britomart show robotic emotion, his communications with his commander are purely businesslike. Indeed, nowhere in the poem do the two converse directly. In describing their campaigning Spenser limits himself to impersonal indirect discourse even more studiously than does Caesar in the De hello gallico. This is quite appropriate, inasmuch as Talus is Astraea's groom. Upon returning to heaven that demnigoddess of justice had "willed him with Artegall to wend, /And doe what ever thing he did intend" and intend suggest, Talus scarcely seems to (V. i. 12) As the verbs iv7ill need explicit conmmands to know his duties. Sometimes, indeed, the iron man seems to act under Artegall's general instruction, as when we are told that "he Talus sent/To wrecke on them their follies hardyment" (V.iv.24). On this occasion, however, Talus not only follows and catches Guyle but pulverizes him when that trickster reescapes from the startled Artegall, an action not contemplated in his original rules of engagement (cp.V.ii.52). Once or twice Talus is given quite specific orders. When Arthur and Artegall combine forces in an undercover operation against the Souldan, Artegall detaches the iron man to accompany the Prince, "and by hiss stirrup Talus did attend,/Playing his pages part, as he had beene/Before directed by his Lord; to the end/He should his flale to finall execution bend" (V. viii. 29, and cp. V.xii.26). But Arthur's orders are usually so general that Talus seems responsible for devising a plan of action: thus when repelled from Pollente's castle, the knight "bad his seruant Talus to invent/Which way he enter might, without endangerment" (V.ii.2o). Since Artegall can delegate all tactical detail, his decision-making is oddly effortless. When an injured squire reveals his assailant's location to Artegall, "no sooner said, but streight he after sent/His yron page" (V.i.2o). The decisiveness of a good commanaderis here treated like the physical snap reflex of a good warrior. Much of the time Talus acts without explicit prompting. While Artegall "fairely gan asswage" the communist Giant with his argument, Talus, exasperated with his continuing sophistries, swells to gigantic proportions in his own right. "Approching nigh unto him cheeke by cheeke," with all the mute violence of a Renaissance Ranibo "he shouldered him from off the higher ground, /And down
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
667
the rock him throwing, in the sea him dround" (V.ii.49). Alternately flailing and parleying with Radigund's Amazons, he seems fully capable of independent decision-making. When his commander is enslaved, he informs Britomart on his own recognizance. Accompanying her to rescue Artegall, he always acts independently, lying outside her door "like to a Spaniel" to protect her from Dolon's men (V.v.26). Finding opponents awaiting them on Pollente's bridge, Talus takes the initiative and "desir'd, that he might have prepared/The way to her" (V. vi. 3 8). His tactical counsel seems both chivalrous and prudent. Britomart angrily disregards it as a piece of chauvinistic condescension and vindicates her prowess by skewering both opposing knights. Her temper shows her heroic spirit, but Talus seems the better officer in this scene, albeit a noncommissioned one. One might suppose that in these instances Talus' independence of action is illusory. Perhaps Artegall issues orders that are not described; perhaps Talus telepathically intuits his master's unvoiced commands, a platoon leader in constant walkie-talkie contact with his captain, so to speak. But such hypotheses fail to explain the many instances where Talus' operational autonomy clearly runs counter to his leader's desires. In particular, Talus represents military ruthlessness. Spenser's employer Lord Grey had been accused of just such ruthlessness, of course. For that reason the Queen relieved him as Lord Deputy and brought him back to England to face charges, an event described allegorically in the last canto. Spenser is so concerned to defend Artegall from charges of undue cruelty that he repeatedly embodies such tendencies separately in Talus, then portrays Artegall as motivated by pity to countermand the merciless violence of his overly zealous subordinate. The final stanza typically describes the reaction of the pair to a slanderous hag: "But Talus hearing her so leudly raile,/And speake so ill of him, that well deserved,/ Would her have chastiz'd with his yron flaile,/Ifher Sir Artegall had not preserved,/And him forbidden, who his heast observed" (V.xii.43). This culminates a string of incidents suggesting that Talus is only tenuously under his commander's control. When Britomart sees that in his vengefulness he will slay Radigund's Amazons to the last woman, "her heart did quake" as her own anger turns to pity and horror (V.vii.36). He spontaneously massacres Grantorto's troops with such sternness that "Artegall him seeing so to rage,/Willd him
668
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
to stay, and signe of truce did make" (V.xii. 8). When the popular Giant is overthrown, the humble victims of his demagogy "rose in armes, and all in battell order stood. /Which lawless multitude him comming too/In warlike wise, when Artegall did view,/He much was troubled, ne wist what to do." His reluctanceto fight with them shows aristocraticdisdain and fear of shame as well as pity. He sends Talus "truce for to desire" (V.ii.5I-52). The mob's persistent hostility provokes Talus to clear the field with his iron flail, so Artegall is extricated from his moral predicament by Talus' tactical initiative. Had Talus sought to clear this action with headquarters, one wonders if Artegall would have replied as Sextus Pompeius did in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra: "Ah, this thou shouldst have done,/And not have spoke on't! In me 'tis villainy,/In thee, 't had been good service."II Book V is Spenser's most ambitious attempt to portray military leadership. The results are curious. Unlike most soldiers, Talus never needs to be inspired to greater efforts; his unflagging energy and morale mean instead that Artegall's chief task is to call him off. Artegall's generalship seems essentially effortless. He knows the loneliness of command, but not its burdens. Tactical problems are delegated to Talus, who solves them with computer-like efficiency. We seldom see Artegall obliged to figure anything out. No heroic poem reduces to an officer's handbook, Renaissance critical theory But Homer's Agamemnon, Virgil's Aeneas, notwithstanding. Camoens' da Gama, and Tasso's Goffredo do inform their epics with an understanding of military leadership that the Legend ofJustice lacks. Lawrence of Arabia drew on the Odyssey for tactical inspiration, but one scarcely imagines any commander campaigning with the Faerie Queene in his duffle. In Artegall Spenser portrays a leader who is in fact usually led by his subordinate. In a revealing and disturbing phrase Talus is described as "the true guide of his way and vertuous gouernment" (V.viii.3). No one accused Lord Grey of
"William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, ed. M. R. Ridley for the Arden Shakespeare (London, 1954) II.vii.73-75. Richly suggestive though his analysis is, in refusing to grant this automaton any effective autonomy Nohrnberg oversimplifies him and nullifies one of Spenser's main points. Thus after noting that, like the Palmer, Talus precedes his knight, suggesting that legal and martial precedent direct Artegall's operations, Nohrnberg must reverse himself and deny the narrative's clear implication by arguing that Talus is no "true guide" but simply a bodyguard, for "he takes direction rather than giving it" (409).
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
669
luxuriating in his civil office while supinely accepting the military decisions of his staff. This perspective helps explain one extraordinary episode. After detaching Talus to serve as Arthur's page, Artegall disguises himself to enter the Souldan's court. Arthur challenges the Souldan and slays him in single combat:
Then Artegall himselfe discouering plaine, Did issue forth gainst all that warlike rout Of knights and armed men ... All which he did assault with courage stout, All were they nigh an hundred knights of name, And like wyld Goates them chaced all about, Flying from place to place with cowheard shame, So that with finall force them all he ouercame. (V.viii. 50o)
No more preposterous combat is described in the entire poem. On foot Artegall single-handedly overcomes nearly a hundred prominent knights together with a corps of armed men presumably even larger. Annotating this passage, A.C. Hamilton seeks to explain it by glossing hundredas "an absolute number, as III iv 21. I etc." and comparing V.iii. I I.5.2 But the word nigh makes it difficult to take hundredabsolutely. In the passages compared a "hundred" knights are defeated sequentially, not in one fell swoop, nor are additional armed men involved. More relevant is Cambello's predicament at the Turneyment of Maidenhead, where "An hundred knights had him enclosed round. " Though "he with their multitude was nought dismayd," his resistance was ultimately "all in vaine: for what might one do more?/They have him taken captive, though it grieve him sore" (IV.iv. 3 -32). In Book V it does not seem to be Artegall who discovers himself but mild-mannered Clark Kent, bursting from mufti mightier than a locomotive and ready to leap tall buildings at a single bound. In the careful plotting of their joint attack Spenser tries to emphasize Artegall's and Arthur's capacity for shrewd generalship. But a hero who can defeat an entire army by himself really has no need of camouflage. Nor has he any need of Talus, who throughout the entire episode stands quietly by in his non-functional role as Arthur's page, though the main end ofArtegall's grand strategy had been to bring the iron flail to bear. Indeed, what seems to
''A. C. Hamilton,ed. TheFaerie Qucene (London, 1977)adloc.Nohrnberg explains thisfeatby tentativeresortto historicalallegory(406-7), but even more convincingparallelswould not diminish the explosive oddity of Artegall'sepic aristeia.
670
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
happen here is that Artegall himself becomes Talus, for the feat is exactly like those routinely performed by the iron man. Just as the Don and Sancho gradually exchange roles in Don Quixote, so here too the relations between master and man are momentarily reversed, with ominous implications for Spenser's theory ofjustice. Because of its historical allegory Book V repeatedly describes armies drawn up for combat, but their behavior is consistently bizarre. When Geryoneo hears of his Seneschall's defeat, he is deeply disturbed, "yet sith he heard but one, that did appeare,/He did him selfe encourage, and take better cheare." Hastily arming himself, "forth he far'd with all his many bad," explicitly trusting in his numerically superior odds. Arriving at his captured citadel, "he sternely marcht before the Castle gate" (V. xi. 2-3). But after this parade of strength his army promptly vanishes. Geryoneo simply challenges Arthur to single combat, loses in short order, and no more is said of his "many bad" that he relied on to help repel the lone invader. Likewise when Artegall together with Talus and Sir Sergis embarks to rescue Irena, they find "great hostes of men in order martiall,/Which them forbad to land." "Wading through the waves," Talus braves rust to establish a beachhead, then routs them utterly. Marshalling another army, Grantorto tries to halt Artegall's party "ere they left the shore." But Artegall debarks rapidly and penetrates inland to a town. When Grantorto's troops arrive, Talus rages so wildly among them that Artegall calls a truce to explain that "not for such slaughter's sake/He thether came." He asks the herald instead to bear a chivalric challenge to Grantorto to spare his people mass misery. This is promptly accepted, for "glad he was the slaughter so to stay." Such unwonted humanity avails the tyrant nothing. Artegall briskly decapitates him, "which when the people round about him saw,/They shouted all for joy of his successe . . . /And running all with greediejoyfulnesse/To faire Irena, at her feet did fall. "As hostilities dissolve into festivity the tyrant's army seems to have been composed to a man of innocent draftees, thus Artegall's benevolent concern for their fate. Yet the strong power that coerced them into service could only be a loyal military cadre, so after the general festivities Artegall must harshly punish "all such persons, as did late maintayne/That Tyrants part" (V. xii. 4-26). The ambiguity of Elizabeth's policies toward Irish rebels makes for contradictory descriptions of army tactics.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
67I
Nor is Spenser more consistent in describing Artegall's own party. In equipping him with the old Sir Sergis as a companion he tries to portray a staff officer, a figure like Homer's Nestor who can exemplify aged skill in the management of warfare. Sergis' chief contribution to the war effort occurs when Artegall encamps before Grantorto's city on the eve of their single combat. Artegall stringently forbids the local populace to entertain him; for British commanders in Ireland could not rely on inadequate local provender, and those who provided it exposed themselves to rebel reprisals. "But yet old Sergis did so well him paine,/That from close friends, that dar'd not to appeare,/He all things did purvay, which for them needfull weare" (V.xii. o). Supplying an army in the field is an eminently realistic part of strategy. To Spenser's credit, he tries to celebrate this unglamorous but very practical side of warfare in Sergis. Unfortunately the result is faintly absurd, for unlike an army Talus does not need to eat. Sergis' noble logistic effort dwindles, on inspection, to rustling up sandwiches for Artegall and himself.
Like strategy, military technology tempts Spenser into grotesquerie that he seems almost to court. In describing Arthur's conquest of the Souldan, Spenser ingeniously develops several specific allegorical parallels with the defeat of the Spanish Armada. The two contend "on the green," where the Souldan fights from "a charret hye,/With yron wheeles and hookes arrn'd dreadfully" (V.viii.28). He is "mounted in his seat so high" that the Prince cannot get at him (V.viii.33). This strange vehicle towers over Arthur even on horseback because Spenser has one eye on the high-pooped Spanish galleons that towered over the smaller English ships on the main. When Arthur finally draws the veil from his dazzling shield and stampedes the Souldan's fire-breathing horses, divine grace shines forth as when the storm scattered the Armada. Arthur never strikes a blow. The Souldan's maddened steeds make him fall victim to his own elaborate war machinery: "At last they have all overthrowne to ground/Quite topside turvey, and the pagan hound/Amongst the yron hookes and graples keene,/Torne all to rags, and rent with many a wound" (V.viii.42). The capsized chariot suggests the foundering of Philip's huge galleons, which carried grappling gear for the boarding tactics upon which they vainly relied. Moreover, it in-
672
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
verts Philip's iconographic impresa, which portrayed Apollo driving the chariot of the sun with the motto lam illustrabit omnia.I3 But what is a chariot doing with "graples" in land warfare? In the classical sources beloved of the Renaissance, chariot warriors do not lash themselves alongside their foes. The Souldan's remarkable vehicle seems less a conventional chariot than a wheeled arsenal: "Againe the Pagan threw another dart,/Of which he had with him abundant store,/On every side of his embatteld cart,/And of all other weapons lesse or more,/Which warlike uses had deviz'd of yore" (V. viii. 34). In describing this formidable battlewagon Spenser seems to have one eye on the Spanish Armada and the other eye on Renaissance technological fantasies. In the fifteenth-century Hussite wars Ziska's troops evolved a technique for fighting from the wagons in which they traveled, which were circled when the enemy appeared. Peculiarly suited to the grasslands of Bohemia, this essentially defensive tactic relied on provoking the enemy to assault the armored wagon train, repelling him with firearms, clubs, and irontipped flails, then sallying with cavalry to rout his disorganized forces. Fighting in this manner, the Hussites won some impressive victories. In his Historia bohemica Enea Silvio Piccolomini embroidered on fact by assuming that the Hussites actually attacked in their mobile forts, encircling and annihilating their dumbfounded foe in an anticipation of modern tank tactics. Thus a legend of marvelous battlewagons capable of offensive prodigies was handed on to the Renaissance with the authority of a Pope. 4 Spenser was no doubt influenced by the form the legend took in Olaus Magnus, whose Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus was a favorite book of his friend Gabriel Harvey. "The chief Souldiers of Sweden and Gothland used Chariots with Hooks and Gramp-Irons . . so, that having searched by what way the Enemy would enter, they bound their empty Chariots ... to firm Beams, in the shelving
13Faerie Queene, V.viii.28. Annotating this passage, A. C. Hamilton rehearses the parallels first pointed out by Upton and adds others. However, he errs in attributing to William Camden a claim that "the Spanish ships were 'headed with yron, and hooked on the sides.' " Camden's phrase actually describes iron-tipped pilings carried by the fleet for mooring, not the ships themselves. For Philip's impresaseeJane Aptekar, Icons ofJustice: Iconographyand Thematic Imagery in Book V of The Faerie Queene (New York, 1969) 80-83. '4See Hans Delbriick, History ofthe Art of Warwithin the Frameworkof Political History, tr. WalterJ. Renfroe, Jr. (3 vols.; Westport, Conn., 1975-82) 3:494-97; Ferdinand Lot, L'Art militaire et les armeesau moyen dge (Paris, 1946) 2:I84-214, 437.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
673
sides of the Mountains," the Archbishop explained (see Fig. 2). "Filling them with snares . . they would let loose these Chariots, which with swift running, would either break their ranks, by rending them, or would disperse their bodies." They also drove "Brazen horses that would spit fire . .. carried about with versatile Chariots into the thickest body of the Enemies," so that "there seemed more hopes of Victory in the Engine than in the Souldier; for the huge weight of it overwhelmed what ever it went against" (see Fig. 3). Having mastered Panzer tactics, "they ever used those Chariots, as movable forts. "5 Rendering these perfervid fancies taxed the illustrator. In his cut the grapples that originally chained Czech wagons in a circle survive only as obscure fittings for attaching separate juggernauts to posts; moreover, he does little to portray their use as forts. Other Renaissance artists dreamed up scythed wagons and mobile forts by the dozen. Valturio's De re militari offered two versions (see Fig. 4). Drawn by panting oxen, the former's lack of horsepower and firepower marks it as an economy model less suited for Blitzkrieg. 16 A certain Gallic elegance characterizes a two-story movable fort sans scythes that accompanied French editions of Vegetius (see Fig. 5).17
and Vandals, tr. Joshua '5OlausMagnus, Compendious Historyof the Goths,Suvedes,
Sylvester (London, 1658) I I8. Figs 2, 3, and 4 are reproduced from the Historia (Roma,
I555) sigs. AA5 v., AA6 v., and L3v. The original Latin reads:"Curribusfalcatis, & hamatis... olim usi sunt ... Gothorumpugnatures"(IX.iii). For Spenser'slikely use of this book see West, "Spenser, EverardDigby, and the RenaissanceArt of Swimming," RenaissanceQuarterly, 26 (1973): 1-22.
in the secondeditionof RobertoValturio's '6Figs.4 and7, which originallyappeared De remilitari (Verona,1483) areherereproduced by kindpermissionfrom the University touchant la discipline tr. Valturin of Edinburgh'scopy of LesdouzelivresdeRobert militaire, LoysMeigret(Paris,I5 55) sigs. Bb I v. andDd2 v. The bindingof this Frenchtranslation bearsthe arms ofJames Hepburn, the greatEarl of Bothwell. It evidently belonged to him in his capacityas Lord High Admiralof ScotlandandLieutenantof the Borders. A formidabletacticianwho personally wounded Spenser'semployer Lord Grey (then servingas a young officer)duringa sallyat the siege of Leith, Bothwell, unlikethe artist, was presumablyexperiencedenough to realizethat weapons could scarcelybe aimed with assurance from a horse-drawncarttrundlingrapidlyacrossunevengroundlike that depicted;indeed,its lurchingwould probablymakethe crew as much of a hazardto each other as to the enemy. On the woodcuts for Valturiosee Max Sander,Le livrea figuies
italien depuis 1467jusqu'a 1530 (Milan, 1943) 4:xlv-xlvii. '7Figs. 5, 6, 9, II, 13, and 15 are here reproduced from Bothwell's copy of Flaue Vegece Rene . . dufait deguerre: etfleur de chevalerie, quatrelivres, . . tr. N. Wolkyr (Paris, 1536) sigs. g4 v, q4, ns, s4, and d2 v. bound together in the Latin edition of the Roman military writers published at Paris in 1532. See French16th CenturyBooks, comp. by Ruth Mortimer as Pt. I of the Harvard College Library Departmenlt of Printing and Graphic Arts
674
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
DE
L LIS
CAM
PESTRI
B.
V.4
Dc curribusfalcatis.
FIG.2-War-chariots with hooks. Reproduced by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
D E-. B"E
L"I S
CAM
PEST
RIB.
V
De zreis equis igniuomis.
FIG.3-Fire-breathing brazen war-horses. Reproduced by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
SPENSER'S ART OF WAR
675
FIG.4- Battlewagons with hooked scythes. From LesdouzelivresdeRobertValturin la disciplinemilitaire(i555); reproduced by permission of the Edinburgh touchant University Library.
No draft animals are visible, so it either relies on internalmanpower or is designed to be pushed from the rear. With a following breeze perhaps it could scud into battle like other popular wind-propelled
(Cambridge, Mass., I964) 2:599-60, CatalogueofBooksand Manuscripts 654-56, for fur-
therdiscussionof theseillustrations,pr6bablycopied by MercureJollat from laterGerman copies of woodcuts by Hans Knappandothers publishedat Erfurtin 151 . These to which the best in turnderive from a complicatedtraditionof manuscriptillustration introductionis offered by BertrandGille, Engineers of the Renaissance (Cambridge,
Mass., 1966).
676
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
FIG.5-A towering Renaissancebattlewagon. Reproduced from Flave Vegece Rene . . . dufaitdeguerre: livres(I536) by permission of the Edetfleurdechevalerie, quatre inburgh University Library.
vehicles of the period (see Fig. 6). Some designers melded boat and chariot by giving their battle-wagons pointed prows.I8 The tall "embattled cart" of Spenser's Souldan seems to be a custom-designed, one-man model synthesizing elements from Figs.
et civilisations, siecle," Techniques 5 (1956):77-86, Fig. 5.
'8For this design see Bertrand Gille, "ltudes sur les manuscrits d'ingenieurs du XVe
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
677
FIG. 6-One of many unworkable designs for a wind-propelled cart. Reproduced from Flave Vegece Rene ... dufait deguerre (I 536) by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
2-5.
9 But no illustrations that I have seen equip chariots with keen
projections that have any real grappling function. Conceivably, therefore, the Souldan is minced by his own copious internalarsenal. Perhaps it included fanciful jointed grappling gear like that por'9For amusing reproductions ofone-man chariot designs by the Italian engineer Taccola see Giuseppe Canestrini, Arte militaremeccanica medievale(Milan, 1946), Figs. LXIII and LXIV. In the first Taccola sought to create the effect of flame-breathing horses by recommending that Greek fire be placed at the tip ofthe chariot's long projecting tongue. Then, realizing that any blaze there would terrify the unfortunate beasts even more than the enemy, in the second sketch he tried to salvage his plan by incorporating a screen. But for various reasons this design, too, was obviously an unworkable pipe-dream.
678
FIG.7-Fanciful jointed grappling gear recommended for siege work; note giant hand. Reproduced from Les douze livresde RobertValturin ( 555) by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
trayed in Fig. 7.20 Keener and more practical are the implements de-
picted in Fig. 8, where among sharp grapplesused for attaching scaling ladders to walls we see some that may actually have served as anti-personnel weapons in the Lowlands wars if Famianus Strada can be believed.21 Describing the relief of the siege of Leyden in 1575, he tells how the Dutch forced the Spanish commander Valdez
of "the complex grapplingdevicesrecommended 200n the utterimpracticability by Valturiofor siege work," seeJ. R. Hale, Renaissance WarStudies (London, I983) 369. 2"Figs.8, IO, and 12 are reproducedby kind permissionfrom the HuntingtonLibrary's copy of Vegetius, De re militari(Erfurt, 15II), Figs. CXXIII, LXXXI, and CXXX, which actuallylacks any text. Evidently the cuts by Hans Knappand others for many reasonsthey merita moder edition. I am enjoyed anindependentcirculation; grateful for the support of a Huntington-NEH Fellowship while I investigatedthis among other topics.

iCXIt
679
.:
LI
FIG. 8-Assorted military grapples. Reproduced from Vegetius, De re militari (I5 I I), by permission of the Huntington Library and Art Gallery.
to flee, "chasing him with Grapples in their hands, that is long poles headed with iron hooks, or hooks at the end of long ropes, wherewith they angled for the Spaniards,grievously wounding them, and drawing up many of them prisoners. "22Functionally the Souldan's grapples remain obscure, like the hooks adorning a pyramid of cannon in another Renaissance fantasiaof Armageddon (see Fig. 9). But in describing how he is hoist by his own armory Spenser had in his mind's eye more than an allegorical impresa.To upset Philip's Apollo-cart he drew on what he took to be descriptions of actual weapons. Many involved grotesque fantasy. Spenser's knights are not always lonely questers for whom war means single combat. In undertaking to assimilate the facts of mass
tr. Sir Robert Stapylton "De bello belgico:The historyof the Low-Countrey warres, (London,I65o)VIII.8, sig. Aaa4v. SeeNorhrnberg393-407 fora laboredeffortto relate the Souldan'schariotwith "graples"to the "monstrousScorpion... / With ugly craples" (V.viii.4o) as elements in an elaboratescheme of zodiacalsymbolism.
680
FIG.9-Cannon alternatedecorously with hooks on an implausible pyramid. ReRene . . . dufait deguerre(1536) by permission of the produced from Flave Vegece Edinburgh University Library.
warfare in his poem he embarked on a task that medieval chivalric conventions had seldom anticipated. He aspired to epic stature and to some extent attained it, but only at the cost of radical inconsistencies. Like that of sixteenth-century Europe, his sensibility was torn between two different concepts of war. Personal prowess found less and less scope in campaigns dominated by massed infantry, gunpowder, and siege tactics, though anachronisticIrishcavalry skirmishing encouraged him to gloss over this contradiction. While gunpowder kindled the robustly popular imagination of the Elizabethan dramatiststo elevate the gun over the sword as the chief emblem of heroic virility, continental aristocracyevolved the point of
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
68I
honor and the ritual of the duel partly to compensate for the felt loss of an organic role in battle as personal cornbatants.23 At the same time the fine arts made imaginative efforts to soften and glamorize the military technology that was eroding chivalry. Iconographically, Mars loses his brutality and is heroicized, developing into a lover, a dandy, and even a figure of fun, while pistolpacking putti cavort on one Cinquecento powder-flask. Leonardo da Vinci sketched prettily ornamented cannon for Lodovico il Moro of Milan. Like many others the Italian artillerist Biringuccio explained that he always added urns, heads of men or animals "to make the gun beautiful."24 After learning to cast reliable iron cannon at one third the cost of brass, English gun-founders were more restrained, since iron could not be finely worked. Nonetheless, on Henry VIII's flagship the Harry-Grace-a-Dieu "bronze guns were covered with decorations and inscriptions, and were genuine works of art.'"25 Like Charles V, Henry christened a pet battery The Twelve Apostles. English armor also remained imbued with a workmanlike spirit somewhat at odds with "the maelstrom of magnificent incoherence which marks the designs for armor by Cellini, Campi, Giulio Romano, and the Louvre School."26 The exuberant martial aestheticism of the continent was carried even further by "some contemporary Italians who for the sake of beauty were engraving not only the guns but even the gunshots, knowing perfectly well that this was detrimental to the efficiency of their artillery. "27 A similar spirit pervades the would-be military engineers, "who were one of the less sane manifestations of the late Renaissance. "28 Their visions of wind-propelled tanks and ox-powered Blitzkrieg sought to elevate the professional soldier above the ruck of battle. Three soldiers propelling a ribaudequin in Hans Knapp's woodcut do not even look at the enemy whom it rolls over. Cheerfully chatting
23Vale i66. For the impact of gunpowder on the European imagination see esp. Hale's richly detailed "Gunpowder and the Renaissance: An Essay in the History of Ideas" 389-421, from which I draw heavily. 24Cited by Hale 407; see further his "War and Public Opinion in Renaissance Italy" 359-87. 2SMauriceB. Daumas, A History of Technology and Invention, tr. Eileen B. Hennessy (New York, 1969) 2:483. 26Charles Ffoulkes, The Gun-foundersof England (Cambridge, Eng., 1937) 28. 27Carlo M. Cipolla, Guns, Sails, and Empires: TechnologicalInnovation and the Early Phases of EuropeanExpansion, 1400-1700 (New York, I965) 43. 28Christopher Duffy, Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World, 14941660 (London, 1979) 76.
682
FIG.Io-Mowing down the enemy with a snazzy ribaudequin. Reproduced from Vegetius, De re militari( 5 I I), by permission of the Huntington Library and Art Gallery.
among themselves, they might be suburbanites maneuvering a artists absorbed in the technical problems of incislawnmower-or wood-blocks (see Fig. io). Even the victims seem curiously ing blas6 about their fate. Only the dog is human enough to show excitement. The geometrical symmetry of these designs for war machines, which is often carried to absurd extremes, has roots in Renaissance magic and occultism, for it was the alchemical tradition that gave birth to gunpowder. The would-be adept is lured with the promise that knowing the art of war will turn war into art (see Fig. I I). Like Shakespeare's Fluellen, the French captain who prepares to fire a missile at the besieged town has evidently read his Vegetius. Perhaps he has also gone to dancing school.29 Showing no strain, he pivots gracefully on one leg to wind his espringal up, ignoring the fact that the artist has failed to wrap the cord around the drum properly. His fancied technical virtuosity obviates the need for armor.
290n geometry and dancingas partof militarytrainingsee Hale's "The Argument and "The MilitaryEducationof the of Some MilitaryTitle Pages in the Renaissance" Officer Class in Early Modem Europe," Studies, esp. 228, 243n. On the occult background see Gille, Engineers 59-60.
683
FIG. I I-Nonchalantly
preparing to fire an impossibly tangled espringal. Reproduced from Flave VegeceRene ... dufait deguerre(I536) by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
On his face the archaic smile of Greek statuaryhas degenerated into a knowing Renaissance smirk. Apparently the impulse to rationalize war, however grotesquely, goes hand in hand with its increasing irrationality-a thought with disturbing modern implications. Indeed, though Spenser'schivalry was outdated, Book V still offers an oddly prescient vision of moder technological warfare. Talus, after all, is not only an army but a quasi-computerized military robot. Yet Talus is not a sinister figure, however troublesome we may find him morally. Like the drawings of Renaissance war machines he is notably grotesque. His feats of exuberant violence have all the wild vitality ofa cartoon. Like the Homeric gods, his invulnerability
684
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
within the heroic world makes him a faintly comic anomaly. Belaboring evil-doers right and left, he transcends his mythic origins, suggesting the Tin Woodman run amok in Oz, yet still in search of a heart. Artegall quests forjustice with a companion who would not be out of place in the pages of Pulci, Folengo, or Rabelais.30 Moreover, Talus' overwhelming power renders all Artegall's individual efforts gratuitous and slightly absurd. Rather than risk his life fighting with Pollente himself, should he not simply have sent in the marines, as indeed he does when assaulting Irena's island? Absurdity of various kinds characterizes Spenser's allegorical style. As Michael Murrin reminds us, allegorical theorists from Julian the Apostate and Origen to Campani and Chapman positively rejoiced in narrative incongruities, for these forced the reader to go beyond the literal level and focus on the spiritual truth that alone gives meaning to allegory. Thus what we may regard as narrative inconsistencies Spenser might defend as narrative virtues. We can only read allegory properly by continually interrogating the poet's mind. No author is obliged to write realistically, and it is one of Spenser's great glories as a romancer that the world he creates is so strikingly sui generis. But the distortions of time and space that free his visionary meaning can also obscure it. How characters accomplish their feats of derring-do is sometimes irrelevant, but not when Spenser draws our attention to mechanical details gratuitously as he so often does. Murrin concedes that on occasions like the Redcrosse Knight's combat with the Dragon "Spenser's distortions do become obvious and confusing to his audience when he places his images in an extended narrative. "3' The incongruities ofMaleger's army force us to think about the illusory nature of fleshly temptations, but the inconsistencies in Calidore's combat with the brigands yield no comparable insight. So much of that episode is tightly plotted in military terms that it raises unfulfilled expectations, and the ending
30For parallels to this mixture of genres see esp. Carmelo Previtera, La poesia giocosa e l'umorismo(2nd. ed. rev., 2 vols.) for the Storia deigeneri letterariitaliani (Milan, 1953) I: 294-2: 68; Alison I. T. Higgins, SecularHeroic Epic Poetry of the Caroline Period (Bern, 1953). 3rThe Veil of Allegory: Some Notes towarda Theory of Allegorical Rhetoricin the English Renaissance(Chicago, 1969) 142. Elegant efforts to define and justify Spenser's narrative inconsistencies, like Paul Alpers, "Narration in The Faerie Queene," ELH, 44 (1977): 19-39, have not entirely persuaded those who, like Madelon Gohlke, "Embattled Allegory: Book II of The Faerie Queene," English LiteraryRenaissance,8 (1978): 123 -40, feel that strain in the allegory often reflects underlying intellectual tension.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
685
seems sadly anticlimactic. Whether Artegall's army is rustproof is an obtuse question, to be sure, but whether he seems genuinely in command of it is not. To seek the answer to that question by interrogating the poet's vision ratherthan his plot may be to embark on a quest as inconclusive as Artegall's. There is nothing in Spenser really comparable to Dante's Celestial Rose, with its precise scholastic underpinnings; rather his syncretic ambition made him heir to all the intellectual contradictions of the Renaissance. Its inconsistencies are also his. If he were pressed about whether the ideal hero could be an ideal commander, about how the private moral virtues relate to the public, about whether war is beautiful, discursively he could perhaps have done no more than cite contradictory authorities. Before we credit him with a truly powerful integrative vision, we must ask whether and where that vision irradiateshis allegory in Book V. In the Temple of Isis? The relative claims ofjustice, equity, and mercy are explored at length, as they are also in Shakespeare'sMerchant of Venice, another work that shifts fluidly between allegorical levels; but Spenser appearsto lack the stable, integrated vision of those values thatinforms the entire structureof the play. Injustifying his allegory many Spenserians demonstrate their own learning rather than his, while others vie to prove their ingenuity by venerating its very
instability.32 Whereas Ariosto's and Tasso's epics were soon trans3-E.g., recent studies like Jonathan Goldberg, Endlesse Worke:Spenser and the Structuresof Discotrse (Baltimore, 198 ), and Kenneth Gross, SpenserianPoetics: Idolatry, Iconoclasm, and Magic (Ithaca, N.Y., 1985), which accept the poem's lack of an integrated vision and seek to valorize it. But as Gross wisely admits, "exaltation of the Renaissance artist's ironic, self-limiting enterprise may involve as much of a reduction as the idea of a totally self-absorbed visionary poet" (200). When Goldberg urges an approach where "the reader plays before the vast aod powerful indifference of the text, learning the pleasures of being made subject to it" (29), some may suspect that they are being asked to prostrate themselves not before the text but before hermeneutic cant. Few except professional Spenserians seem likely to share his masochistic delight in "a freeplay within the text's own narcissism, which also leaves the text playing with itself and the reader defeated" (i 16n). If the Faerie Queene resembles Finnegans Wake, Spenserians are fast coming to rival Joyceans in their penchant for learned foolishness. In The New Pelican Guide to English Literature,ed. Boris Ford (New York, 1982), W. W. Robson honestly faces up to some of the poet's traits that make it "difficult to feel that his work is really alive today." Noting the plight of the reader "caught between some experts using freedom of association ever more and more widely, and others demanding a heavier and heavier burden of esoteric knowledge," he soberly concludes, "Studies multiply, often repetitive; one scholar may differ from another, but no interpretation gets eliminated; more and more are added. And as this is a world without a common reader, there is no common-sense check on these interpretations, no public opinion that may be attended to. It is not a healthy state of affairs for a supposedly classic author" (2:119-36). Three
686
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
lated into English, and Dante's and Shakespeare's complete works have been translatedinto dozens of languages, no nation has ever felt the need for a complete translation of the FaerieQueene. There are precious few translations of individual books. That is perhapsno accident of literary history. Spenser's integrative vision is sometimes incommunicable except through the subtlety of allegory. But sometimes his allegory is not subtle, and elsewhere he has no mastering vision to communicate.
* * * * *
do not dissolve Many narrativeincoherencies in the FacrieQuc'rne in some higher allegorical synthesis but remain markedly incongruous. What Murrin calls the Absurdity Principle does indeed function in the poem, though not always quite as he suggests. Running through the epic is a vein of ludicrousness. Indeed, Renaissance chivalric epics tend to be distinguishable from those of classical antiquity by a spirit we might call heroi-comic. Despite Spenser's gravity - or indeed partly because of it - such tendencies are observable throughout the poem, and perhaps nowhere more obviously than in the passages purportedly dealing with warfare. Sooner or later, insisting on an impossibly lofty heroism will beget a reaction. What clearly happened in the Restoration also occurred in the Elizabethanera. Though in interpreting Muiopotmos we have been urged to discard seventeenth-century genre expectations "unknown to Elizabethans who had no subtle understanding of the mock-heroic," it is worth considering that puzzling little poem in the light of Spenserian ambivalence about warfare.33 Problems begin with the invocation, which applies so uncertainly to the poem that many scholars have tried to explain it as an allusion to a historical feud. But they cannot agree on the personages involved:
remedies might help: I) a moratorium on scholarly adulation of the poet, which masks his declining reputation from no one but academics and does little to address its causes 2) less critical pomposity and a livelier sense of humor when reading Spenser 3) an approach to his intellectual background like that of Robert Grudin in Mighty Opposites: Shakespeareand Renaissance Contrariety (Berkeley, 1979), which might make Spenser's polarized thinking seem both less smugly secure and less self-canceling-in short, more genuinely dialectical. See further Grudin s.v. "Humanism," Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago, 1986). 33Don Cameron Allen, "On Spenser's Muiopotmos," Studies in Philology, 53 (I956):I41-58. Allen's identification of the butterfly with the soul, now widely accepted, is further developed by Judith Anderson," 'Nat worth a boterflye': Muiopotmos and The Nun's Priest's Tale, "Journal of Medieval and Renaissalnce Studies I (I97I):89-Io6.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
687
I Sing of deadly dolorous debate, Stir'd up through wrathfull Nemesis despight, Betwixt two mightie ones of great estate, Drawne into armes, and proofe of mortall fight, Through prowd ambition, and hartswelling hate, Whilest neither could the others greater might And sdeignfull scorne endure; that from small jarre Their wraths at length broke into open warre. (I-8)
If not two Elizabethan noblemen, who are the "mightie ones" whose armed discord is here announced? The lines scarcely apply to Clarion, for the butterfly is never even aware of the hateful spider until he blunders into his net. He is motivated more by pleasure than "prowd ambition," let alone "hartswelling hate," or "sdeignfull scorne." Lines 7-8 seem to envisage a protracted quarrel and struggle quite unlike Aragnoll's rapid overthrow of the unwary Clarion. Therefore, William Wells argued that the "two mightie ones" were Pallas and Arachne, whose Ovidian quarrel over skill in weaving the poem freely adapts at some length. Bested in the contest by the nonOvidian butterfly woven into the goddess' tapestry, Arachne's metamorphosis accounts for her son's enmity to all butterflies.34 Wells' conjecture is tempting, but discrepancies remain. Are the first stanza's martial epithets a mock-heroic exaggeration of the domestic weaving scene where Arachne "challenges" Pallas? This is hard to maintain, for in adapting the myth from the Mletamorphoses Spenser eliminates from it every element of conflict between the two female figures that Ovid had boisterously emphasized. Ovid's Minerva visits earth determined that her rival shall recant her vaunts. Matched or even surpassed as a weaver by Arachne, she angrily tears up her rival's tapestry and belabors the girl with her shuttle. Then when the sorely pummeled Arachne starts to hang herself in shame, the goddess half-pityingly changes her into a spider, suspended from her own web. Spenser's goddess, by contrast, hearing of Arachne's fame, "Came downe to prove the truth, and due reward/ For her prais-worthie workmanship to yeild." Challenged to com-
34SeeWilliam Wells, " 'To Make a Middle Construction':The Significanceof the in Philology,42(I945):544-54. Also tempting Studies Opening Stanzasof Muiopotmnos," is the conjectureof Isabel E. Rathborne, "Another Interpretationof Muiopotmos,
PMLA 49 (1934): 1050-68, that Spenser set out to depict a war between the two "mightie
ones" Aragnoll and Muscaroll, with their respectiveinsect armies;but as Wells notes, formally the poem seems a polished mock tragedy ratherthan a fragment of a larger mock epic.
688
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
pete, she graciously accedes and clearly outclasses her rival. Arachne silently concedes the victory, but "poisonous rancor" at her defeat and "griefof follie late repented" transform her into a spider. Spenser's benign goddess does nothing to cause her metamorphosis except weave divinely. Indeed, there is really no "deadly dolorous debate" between them, for there is no sign that this generous Minerva could not tolerate her mortal rival's skill. When Arachne completes her tapestry of Europa, it is "Such as Dame Pallas, such as Envie pale . . /Could not accuse," and indeed the goddess never does (267-348). The conflict seems to be entirely in Arachne's mind rather than in the narrative, from which Spenser resolutely excludes every Ovidian detail that might suggest that "their wraths at length broke into open warre." Even the attempted suicide is suppressed. Moreover, if we apply the first stanza to Pallas and Arachne, it is oddly followed by the question, "Is there then/Such rancour in the harts ofmightie men?" Spenser deliberately masculinizes a Virgilian line characterizing a goddess' rancour. On Well's interpretation the poem supplies the "tragicall effect" of a quasi-conflict "the roote whereof' remains quite obscure (9-16). The scholarly search for two historical "mightie ones" was probably triggered by characteristic Spenserian narrative inconsistency. However we apply the opening stanza, it promises us an epic conflict that never materializes, not even in mock-heroic terms. Probably Spenser does not invoke Calliope because Clarion himself represents his epic muse. Abandoning pastoral for epic in the invocation to the Faerie Queene, he decides "for trumpets sterne to chaunge mine Oaten reeds" (FQ, I Pro.i). In The Teares of the Mvses he portrays the plight of the patroness of epic poetry in an unheroic age. "The nurse ofvertue I am hight,/And golden Trompet ofeternitie," Calliope laments, but "now I will my golden Clarion rend,/And will henceforth immortalize no more" (457-464). Such disillusionment with epic, though not constant, is a recurring theme in Spenser.3s
35This notion was first proposed by Anne Kimball Tuell, 'Note on Spenser's Clarion," ModernLanguage Notes, 36(192I): 182-83. In "Invidia and the Allegory of Spenser's 'Muiopotmos,' " English Studies in Canada, 2 (I976):I44-5 5, Ronald B. Bond modified it by identifying Clarion not with Spenser's epic muse but with fame. His Spenser is more medieval than mine, but his focus on the role of aemulatio in the poem, which may denote either envy or heroic emulation, reinforces my conception of the poem's ambivalence about heroic values.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
689
Muiopotmos can be read as a smiling, half-rueful fantasia about the tragic predicament of a Renaissance epic poet with Puritan inclinations and a taste for romance. Clarion desires "each part t'inquire" of his ancestral domain. Able "to tempt the troublous wind," he has the power "to mount aloft vnto the Christall skie'/To vew the
workmanship ofheavens hight" (44-45). But though he might challenge Homer and Virgil, Italianate beauty is his preferred element. His delicately described accoutrements are warlike only insofar "as him their terrour more adornes" (88). The myth of Astery links him with a ladylike world of floral displays whose courtly elegance retains its charm despite courtly backbiting and intrigue. Fluttering boldly "through all the countrey wide he did possesse," he finds that nothing in the realm of nature "mote please his fancie," for "no common things may please a wauering wit." Instead he is drawn "to the gay gardins" of"lavish Nature in her best attire," where "Arte with her contending, doth aspire/T'excell the naturall, with made delights." Strongly reminiscent of Acrasia's bower, this artificial paradise, which comes complete with "dull Poppie," suggests the heavily ornamented aesthetic atmosphere of Renaissance chivalric romance. In this make-believe world it seems possible for Clarion to taste "whatso else of vertue good or ill/Grewe in this Gardin, fetcht from farre away." But the garden of such art is as deceptive as Clarion's sense of freedom within its plots. It cannot insulate him from the need for grace from the powers that brood over the cosmos. Although Clarion will encounter no army in Muiopotmos, in our real world "the armies of their creatures all and some/Do serve to them, and with importune might/Warre against us the vassals of
their will" ( 50-231).
What finally checks the free exercise of Clarion's poetic fancy is not simply theological but military reality. Aragnoll is "the foe of fair things" (244). Against such an ugly enemy the fragile fictions of Clarion's chivalric armour are not proof. Though his horned helmet is initially compared to "a warlike Brigandine" with "engines which in them sad death do hide" (84-86), a poetically embroidered burganet will not enable Clarion to contend gloriously in single combat with a crafty adversary who is actually a skilled military engineer. Inheriting a perverse artistic talent from his unfortunate mother, the spider overthrows the knightly butterfly by contriving weaponry so superior that the result seems not so much warfare as butchery. Like the figures in Renaissance military engravings, the
69o
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
FIG. 12- Geometric constructions resembling cobwebs in a Renaissance handbook of military engineering. Reproduced from Vegetius, De re nmilitari (i 51 ), by permission of the Huntington Library and Art Gallery.
spider is an amateur of geometry and wants "all his gins that him entangle might, /Drest in good order, as he could devise." Diagrams from Hans Knapp's series point up the parallel between cobwebs
and a military engineer's geometrical constructions (see Fig. 12).
The ingenuity ofAragnoll's "networke" surpasses "that same subtil gin,/The which the LemnianGod framde craftilie,/Mars sleeping with his wife to compasse in,/That all the Gods with common mockerie/Might laugh at them, and scorne their shamefull sin" (368-388). But the result oftechnology is the same in each case:Mars is rendered contemptible or ridiculous. When one woodcut shows an armed diver marching along blithely underwater (though the laws of pressure prevent sucking air more than eighteen inches below the surface) and even nabbing a complaisant fish en route (though the artist-engineer has not provided his helmet with eyeholes), we begin to converge oddly on such a vision. Its heroi-comic overtones are reinforced when on the surface a small Triton takes

C I --I
69I
I
:-.~
i
;1*
~;
V~~~~~~~'
FIG. 13- Underwater sneak attack or fishing expedition? Reproduced from Flave
Rene ... Vegece Library.
dufait deguerre(i 536) by permission of the Edinburgh University
aim with bow and arrow at a haughty waterfowl, recalling the mythological pygmies in their ludicrous parody of warfare with
cranes (see Fig. 13).
A common motto for Renaissancemilitary treatises was Marteet arte. But Spenser's Ovidian mythmaking suggests that in Muiopotmoshe was not entirely happy with the equation. The root of Clarion's decline is to be found, if anywhere, in Arachne's contention with Pallas. Whereas Ovid's Arachne wove a tapestry deriding the gods by portraying a dozen mythological abductions, Spenser makes her select one subject: the Rape of Europa. The three stanzas describingit areone of his handsomest pieces of mythological word-
692
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
painting, showing a remarkable ability to participate in all the elements of the scene imaginatively: the enamoured bull, the frightened girl, the crisping waves, the fluttering loves. He is clear that it was "a goodly worke, full fit for Kingly bowres" (300). But though he renders the scene with considerable dignity and enormous verve, he was also probably conscious of the meanings assigned to it by Renaissance mythographers. Summarizing several earlier sources, George Sandys cites speculation about a warlike raid on Asia Minor by Cretans who carried away the daughter of the Phoenician king Agenor; "and because the figure of a Bull was carved on the prow of the ship (or as others report in that Taurus of Gnossos was their Captaine) it was fained that Jupiter stole her away in that likenesse: the Sydonians stamping the same on their Coine, either in flattery to their king, or to comfort him.. . . Of her name our part of the world was called Europa."36 This euhemeristic interpretation grounds Western culture in armed aggression like the Trojan War. In its allegory Minerva's tapestry stands in sharp contrast to Arachne's. The goddess of wisdom portrays her victory over Poseidon when the two deities contested for title to Athens before their fellow gods. Poseidon "strikes the rockes with his three-forked mace;/Whenceforth issues a warlike steed in sight,/The signe by which he chalengeth the place." But Pallas counters triumphantly: Then sets she forth, how with her weapon dredd She smote the ground, the which streight foorth did yield A fruitfull Olyve tree, with berriesspredd, That all the Gods admir'd;then all the storie She compast with a wreathe of Olyves hoarie. Emongst those leaves she made a Butterflie, With excellent device and wondrous slight, Fluttringamong the Olives wantonly
That seemed to live, so like it was in sight. ... (3 4-332)
ed. KarlK. Hulley andStanley Englished, 3'GeorgeSandys,tr., Ovid'sMetanorplhosis of MAuiopotnos T. Vandersall(Lincoln, Neb., 1970) 125. For an interpretation stressing the role of the tapestryin somewhat similarterms and treatingthe butterflyas a generic Elizabethan courtier satirized for political impotence, see Robert A. Brinkley, the tapestryyet anotherallegoryof the Fall,but proves only thatChristianexegesis itself can fall into monotonous reductionism. More persuasiveis TerranceBrophy Kearns, "RhetoricalDevices and the Mock-Heroic in Spenser's'Muiopotmos,' " Publications of The Arkansas Philological Association, 9:2(I983):58-66.
"Spenser's Muiopotmosand the Politics of Metamorphosis," ELH, 48 ( 98 I):668-76. In Thomas Ramey Watson finds in "Spenser's Muiopotmos," Explicator, 40:4(982):9-II,
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
693
Poseidon claims Athens because his demonstrable martial expertise, symbolized by a warhorse, makes him especially dear to its turbulent, sea-faring populace. But the goddess of wisdom vindicates her prior claim by forcibly reminding thejury, in Sandys' words, "that a Citty is not to be so much renowned for riches and empire, purchased by naval victories; as by civill arts and a peaceable government" grounded in agriculture (p.286). Pallas vanquishes Arachne as she vanquished Poseidon-by making the gospel of peace seem wiser than the glorification of warfare. Her doctrine roots European civilization firmly in the intellectual achievements of Athens rather than in a Hellenic Viking raid on Asia Minor. And she vanquishes Arachne peaceably by sublimating strife in artistic creation. Arachne's metamorphosis is occasioned only by her inability to do the same. Bordered by an olive wreath, this richly suggestive tapestry is consummated by the butterfly "fluttering among the Olives wantonly. " Olive wreathes were both emblems of victory and emblems of peace "in that Peace is the end for which war is made" (Sandys 268). The muse of epic poetry may require both, but its prior domicile, its native habitat, here seems to be peace. This image is not only the nexus of the plot but the nodal symbol of the poem. At the core of Spenser's little mock-heroic is thus a paradoxical vision where epic poetry somehow sustains itself gaily without war, and military victory becomes artistic triumph. The fragility of this integrative vision is evident. It is established by an armed goddess and may be no more than a "wondrous slight." It flickers in Spenser like the "unstaid desire" of Clarion, who, after all, will go on to die misrather comically. But what erably and not very heroically-indeed, Achilles' shield is to the Iliad this tapestry is to Muiopotmos, allowing us to glimpse for a moment the governing vision of Spenser's poem. Surprisingly like Dryden's, at bottom that vision is anti-heroic. 37 This may seem implausible until we reflect that portions of the Faerie Queene betray a similarly anti-heroic spirit. Throughout the "Legend of Holiness," for example, Spenser subjects the Redcrosse Knight's conventional epic heroism to such a searching Christian
37On Dryden's anti-heroic vision see West, "Dryden and the Disintegration of Renaissance Heroic Ideals," Costerus, 7 (I973):I93-222; also West's other works on Dryden therein cited.
694
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
critique that the birth of a Puritan saint may seem the death of a hero. Consequently, the climactic dragon-fight is studded with "mockheroic comparisons," and "thejoco-serious undertone . .. gets the better of the narrative here, once the dragon is dead" (Nohrnberg 196). Elsewhere in the Faerie Queene a more powerfully synthetic vision prevails, but not steadily, not always successfully, and sometimes quite absurdly. With its implicit aestheticism, the Renaissance conception of the Art of War did much to foster such epic grotesqueness. Spenser shared this failing with other Elizabethans. As C.S. Lewis shrewdly observed apropos of Gervaise Markham's nautical epic The Tragedy of Sir Richard Grenville (1595), "the Golden style not only fails but becomes ludicrous, even odious, when it attempts to present heroic action occurring in the real world ... a defect visible in the battle poetry of Drayton, Spenser, and even Shakespeare."38 Certainly Spenser's effort to aestheticize war in a rhetoric of sugared sweetness makes some of his stanzas flow like The Daerie Queene. The Renaissance was in many respects a renascentia rhetorica, not only in literature but in other forms of cultural expression. Whereas humanistic rhetoric sought to moralize experience and reform society, Heinrich Plett suggests, courtly rhetoric aimed at aestheticizing life in the interest of celebrating order and enhancing political stability. Ornament dominates courtly rhetoric because it both drapes and highlights the brute fact of power, just as the contrapuntal art of the madrigal gets its most expressive effects by elaborating the starkest Petrarchan cliches. The masque is the courtly genre par excellence. Typically it contains an anti-masque, and other Elizabethan art-forms also spawn their own antitheses. At the core of courtly rhetoric are irony, allegory, and impersonation, three related forms of polysemy. By defining allegory as "when we speake one thing and thinke another" Elizabethan rhetoricians like George
Literaturein the SixteenthlCentury (Oxford, 1954) 523. On the implications 3XEnglish of this tendency for Elizabethan genres see West, "Drayton's 'To the Virginian Voyage': From Heroic Pastoral to Mock-Heroic," RenaissanceQuarterly, 24 (I97I):501-5o6. For treatment of Renaissance burlesque poetry as symptomatic of "der Krise der epischen Dichtung," see Erich Loos, Alessandro Tassonis "La Secchia Rapita" und das Problemdes heroisch-komischen Epos, Schriften und Vortrage des Petrarca-Instituts KOlns, 20 (Cozu einer Geschichtedes komisclhcr Epos logne, 1967) 28; also Karlernst Schmidt, Vorstudien (Halle, I953); and Previtera, Poesia giocosa. On "il pacifico temperamento dell'autore" characteristic of heroi-comic poets see Domenico Oritisi, "La satira nei poemi eroicomici del Seicento," Cenobio, 8 (I959): 136-59; also Fernand Fleuret and Louis Perceau, du XVIIe siccle (Paris, 1923) I:vi. eds., Les Satires francfaises
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
695
Puttenham equated it with irony. Indeed, Puttenham calls allegory "the Courtier or figure of faire semblant" and sees it as essential to the courtier because "in any matter of importance his wordes and his meaning very seldom rneete."3' Yet from Castiglione onwards courtly writers also sought to distinguish the desire to stylize the self aesthetically from hypocrisy. Despite Neo-Platonism's assurances, whether faire semblant was actually false semblant was a key issue for Elizabethan culture in the 1590s. It was certainly a key issue for Spenser, who was both an aspiring court poet and a satirist at odds with the court. "An Aligory is eyther pure, or commixte" wrote the rhetorician Henry Peacham in 1577. "A commixt Aligorye, is when one word, or more than one in the Aligory, have their proper sygnifycation. "40 His illustration shows a minister nervously concerned lest allegorical interpretation leach the literal truth from Scriptural terms like "unquenchable fire." But his very effort to expound the literal meaning of such fire as "everlasting paynes" itself invokes an abstraction. When Peacham weeded The Garden of Eloquence under Ramnistinfluence in 1593, he was still wrestling with the notion of mixed allegory, "whereof this may be an example: Why doest thou covet the frute and not consider the height of the tree whereon it groweth? Thou doest not forethinke of the difficultie in climbing, nor danger in reaching, whereby . . . thou fallest with the bough which thou doest embrace." Covet, consider, andforethinke "retaine their proper sense . .. which words do make it a mixt Allegorie," he concluded. "This Allegorie describeth, although somewhat obscurely, yet verie aptly, the danger, vanities, and common reward of ambition." He could not grasp that his own exegesis required him to include danger among the literal terms. His dutiful praise for allegory is tempered with considerable mistrust, evidently grounded in his difficulty coping with it. How would a man troubled by the obscurity of this little parable have responded to the wildly mixed allegory of The Faerie Queene? While he elsewhere praises Spenser's Shepheardes Calender ( 579), there is little evidence that he had read
3-Cited by Heinrich F. Plett, "Aesthetic Constituents in the Courtly Culture of Renaissance England," New Literary History, 14 (I983): 597-621. My argument in this paragraph draws heavily on this excellent article. 40Henry Peacham, The Garden of Eloquence (1577; rpt. Menston, 1971) sig. Dii. See Plett, "Konzepte des Allegorischen in der englischen Renaissance," in Formenand Funktionen der Allegoric, ed. Walter Haug (Stuttgart, 1979) 3 IO-35.
696
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
the Faerie Queen-except perhaps for this warning: "In speaking by Allegories strange similitudes and unknowne translations ought to be avoyded, lest the Allegorie which should be pleasant, become peevish and altogether unprofitable: also unlikenesse of the comparisons do make the Allegorie absurd."41 Such problems stem partly from allegory's effort to realize the timeless in the timebound medium of narration. Human lives too are timebound. Certainly any effort to live out the contradictions in The Faerie Queene risked absurdity. Like Spenser, his good friend Gabriel Harvey strove to straddle the gaps between his bourgeois origins, his humanism, and the court. But his awkward selfstylization, his difficulty in finding a rhetorical script that would mediate the polarities of his life, left him virtually incarnating the absurd. We remember him today (if at all) as the "Gorboduc HuddleDuddle' of Nashe's satirical pamphlets. Just as Spenser's Malbecco "quight/Forgot he was a man, and Gelosy is hight" (FQ, III.x.60), so Harvey's career makes us feel that we are watching an intellectual transform himself into a comic allegorical figure-call him Frustrato. The mercer Robert Laneham allegorized his life with more sprezzatura, if we may judge from A Letter: Whearin, part of the entertainment untoo the Queenz Majesty, at Killingiwoorth Castl . . . in this Soomerz Progress 1575, is signified. Elizabeth's progresses provoked extravagant pageantry. Leicester's reception of her at Killingworth was no exception. She was welcomed by elaborately costumed people of all ranks impersonating allegorical figures from the Lady of the Lake to Pomona. At the castle gate a surly porter enacted a scene out of romance by declining to admit her, then relenting. For nineteen days fireworks resounded, processions were mounted, damsels recited poems, marriages were celebrated, and the men staged mock combats where after "good bangz a both sides: the fight so ceasing, but the battail not so ended, folloed the footmen."42 But this remarkable epistle does more than describe how the Queen and her grandees collaborated to choreograph extravagant fantasies, so that Elizabethan culture often seems a kind of dress rehearsal for the Faerie Queene, complete with dissolving battles. If
41The Gardenof Eloquence,ed. William G. Crane (I 593; rpt. Gainesville, I954) 26-27. 42Letter:Describing a Part of the Entertainmentunto Queen Elizabeth at the Castle of Kenilworth in 1575, ed. F.J. Furnivall (London, I907) 37. My discussion of Laneham deMore velops a pregnant footnote in Stephen Greenblatt's RenaissanceSelf-FashioningJfromn to Shakespeare(Chicago, I980) 284n.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
697
Bottom had written Peter Quince a letter from Titania's bower, it might have resembled this one. Laneham's enthusiastic participation in the collective fantasy mingles oddly with a sense of detachmenet. He has all of Bottom's aplomb but can gleek just as sharply. Though he jovially signs himself "El Prencipe negro," his assumed identity as the Black Prince seems to be part of a running joke with "my good freend, Master Humfrey Martin Mercer," to whom he is writing. Indeed, he composes his eighty-page letter from "sum notez and observationz" taken diligently throughout the festivities, "for I can not bee idl at ony hand in the world" (I). The work ethic of these two tradesmen gives them a wry perspective on Killingworth's gilded butterflies. Laneham was there as a dependent of Leicester, whom "it pleazed . to have given me apparail eeven from hiz bak, to get me allowauns in the stabl, too advauns me untoo this worshipfull office so neer the most honorabl Councell, to help me in my lecens ofBeanz . Whearby I go noow in my sylks, that else might rulfl in my cut canves: I ryde now a hors bak, that els many timez might mannage it a foot: am knoen to their honors & taken foorth with the best, that els might be bidden to stand bak nmyself . .and none oftheez for my dezert eyther at fyrst or syns" (80-8 I). Enjoying his good fortune but frankly acknowledging its whimsicality, Laneham was shrewd enough to see that Leicester's situation was much the same. His praise for his patron is appropriately whimsical. Scholars may debate what Spenser meant by celebrating magnificence in Arthur, but Laneham extolls "his Lordships great honor and magnificens" chiefly for letting him scarf up free food, ogle the entertainment, and flirt with the ladies: "I can gracify the matters as well as the prowdest of them; and waz yet never staynd, I thank God" (6I). From Ceres' role in a pageant he passes to the crisis when the beer gave out, estimating consumption with a tradesman's eye. He is given to disconcerting shifts in register: "Nath then rather, master Martin (to cum out of our poeticalities & too talk yn more serioous tearms . . . (65). Laneham was not unlettered. He had gone to St. Paul's school and read his Terence there; moreover, a knack for continental languages acquired in trading had brought him to Leicester's attention. But patches of ornamental rhetoric mask shrewd common sense. The sight of an Italian tumbler leaves him temporarily at a loss for words until "anon I bethought me of men that can reason and talk with too toongs, and with too parsons at onez, sing like burds, curteiz of behaviour, of body strong and injoynts so nymbl withall,
698
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
that their bonez seem as lythie and plyaunt as syneuz. . .. Nay Master Martin I tell you no jest: for both Diodorus Siculus .. .and also
from him, Conrad Gesnerus . . . reporteth the same."43 He pro-
fesses that they live in a happy island four months voyage beyond Ethiopia, but he may have felt that similarly pliant beings with two tongues could be found a good deal closer to home. Though he had learned to speak their language, it is not clear that the Black Prince uncritically relished their company. El Prencipe negro strolls through Leicester's enchanted castle with much of Sancho Panza's skepticism. But courtly culture could generate its own comic criticism from within. Sir John Harington was the Queen's godson, but he surveyed the court with the ironic eye of an Ariosto. Spenserians have happily used the annotations to his translations of the Orlando Furioso to argue for the persistence of allegorical interpretation late into the Elizabethan era. But as one recent study emphasizes, they ignore "the strong indications in Harington's book of the opposite tendency: a dawning awareness of the limitations of the allegorical method as a way of interpreting, and justifying poetry. "44Though for the most part he follows the sober Italian explicator Fornari, he is radically ambivalent about such exegesis. The entire project had been imposed on him by the Queen as penance for translating Ariosto's obscene twenty-eighth Canto and circulating it at court. Not surprisingly, in his annotations to the Canto "we are clearly very close to open parody of the fourfold expository method" (374). Thus his ingenious scatological whimsy The Metamorphosis of Ajax (1596). If the allegorists were right, his proposal for a new closestool must shadow forth (among other ideas) the notion that the throne could be improved by sanitary engineering. But though Harington knew that all was not fragrant at court, he was too much its
43Laneham 25. Cp. his odd description of Killingworth's clock, which Leicester stopped for the Queen's visit. Equating the number one with the dignity of sovereignty and the inumber three with plurality "or els confusion," Laneham speculates elaborately about the numerological significance of stopping the clock at two. He finally reads his own riddle by deciding that it must stand for amity or "a freendly conjunction of two ones," but does so in a manner that sounds suspiciously as if he were tempted to see in this choice of time another emblem of courtly duplicity (53-55). 44T. G. A. Nelson, "SirJohn Harington and the Renaissance Debate over Allegory," Stldics in Phlilolo(y, 82 (I985): 359-79.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
699
creature to forsake it. His ironies allowed him to keep strolling through courtly allegory's palace of mirrors as through a funhouse. When Philibert de Vienne's work was translated by George North in 1575 as The Philosopher of Court, its translator and many English readers missed its irony. In a letter of 1579 Gabriel Harvey describes how his Cambridge contemporaries, eager for preferment at Court but increasingly uncertain that their humanistic education would do them much good there, desperately strove to make themselves men of the world. "You can not stepp into a schollars studye but (ten to on) you shal litely finde open ether Bodin de Republica . . or sum other like Frenche or Italian Politique Discourses," he noted. Then as now, Cambridge was full of parochial academics, the offspring of an aspiring bourgeoisie. Instead of publish or perish, their motto was pubic service or parish. "And nowe of late forsoothe to help countenance owte the matter they have gotten Philiberts Philosopher of the Courte . . . Castiglioes fine Cortegiano . . . Guatzoes new Discourses . . . Plutarch in Frenche, Frontines Strategemes, Polyenes Strategemes. . .. "45Just as these literary intellectuals read Philibert's satiric attack on the court as a how-to guide to preferment, so they read French and Italian translations of the classical military writers and naively gawked at the illustrations. For all his affectation of superiority, Harvey shared their goals. Most of the books he lists he definitely read. His marginalia show how much he thought he profited from writers like Machiavelli. That he read The Philosopher of Court cannot be proven, but it would be strange if he ignored it. Whether he would have fathomed its irony is unclear. But this faculty-club Machiavel could not fathom the military writers-or rather he dove too deeply into them. Annotating his copy of William Bourne's A Regimentfor the Sea (1 592), he regretted its focus on the merchant marine. "One chapter of Naumachie, or Sea-fight, were necessarie in a Martial world," he decided. And after listing "thre notable Stratagems, in ye last chapter ofFrontin," hejotted down a fourth topic to be covered: "Perforatio Navium, per Urinatores."46 The French woodcuts of military divers had evidently made a lasting impression on him. Olaus Mag45Letter-Book ofGabriel Harivey,ed. EdwardJohn Long Scott (Westminister, 1884) 7879. 4('Macginalia, ed. G. C. Moore Smith (Stratford-Upon-Avoni, I93) 214. On the achievements of early divers, both legendary and factual, see Reg Valentine, Divers and Diving (Poole, Dorset, 1981) ch. i.
700
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
De Magis marinis
FIG. 14-Pirate, necromancer, and pioneer surfer, Oddo used to wander at sea
without a ship. Reproduced by permission of the Edinburgh University Library.
nus had reinforced it with tales about "a kind of Pyrats that use Leather ships, and by an arbitraryNavigation not so much above as beneath, they lye in wait, boring holes in the ships of Merchants about the Pump" (20). The Archbishop went on to explain that Scandinaviandivers had to be expert in underwater combat to ward off the monstrous fish that regularly beset them. Such feats came naturallyto folk adept at water sports. Another chapterdescribesthe sinister Oddo, a Danish pirate who preyed on merchants by raising tempests to swamp theirvessels. Oddo "was so well learnedin Magick, that he would wander at Sea without a ship" (XXX.xvii). Struggling to imagine this, the Italian artist compromised and depicted Oddo deftly cruising the Baltic dryshod on a board (see Fig. 14). The depredations of this malevolent wizard were finally halted when the Swedish king dispatched Eric the Eloquent to Jomsborg. Eric's eloquence took the very practicalform of ordering divers to bore holes in Oddo's ships by night. "The following morn they began to list and Eric attackedand killed all the distractedpirates"(Vallentine 12). Neither hocus-pocus nor the knack of hanging ten availedOddo in the long run against the scourge of submarine warfare.
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
701
Guyon's passage through the fantastic perils in the GulfofGreedine'ss suggests that Spenser may have shared Harvey's fascination with surfing sorcerers and underwater demolition. But he also shared the minister Peacham's commitment to the rhetoric of Christian humanism, the mercer Laneham's bourgeois skepticism about courtly values, the butterfly Harington's ambivalence about allegory. A society where an ironic encomium like Philibert de Vienne's could be read straightforwardly was also a world where an allegorical encomium like the Faerie Queene could be read ironically. Insofar as the Faerie Queene sings the mock battles of Elizabethan pageantry, it partakes of mock epic. While Spenser labored "to pourtraict in Arthure . .. the image of a braue knight," iconoclastic Protestantism made him wary of graven images.47 He deeply mistrusted his own art. Indeed, Spenser's plight resembles that of the artificer in one woodcut, who, operating an elaborate military machine, finds it threatening to recoil upon him (see Fig. 15). The poet was no sorcerer's apprentice; but, like Prospero, the mature artist had to abjure his art. "Now, mark me how I will undo myself, " cries Shakespeare's Richard II (IV.i.203). As his courtly culture disintegrates, he resorts to bitter mock-ritual ceremoniously to unravel the ceremony draping the Realpolitik of his deposition. Likewise the Faerie Queene dissolves in the gentler self-parody of the Mutabilitie Cantos. As Nohrnberg emphasizes, the epic's coda is comic and satiric. The gods engage in all-too-human political squabbling. Mutability's lawsuit resembles the harebrained scheme that typically precipitates Aristophanic comedy. She is the ironic imposter or alazon who assaults the old society, an Erasmian paradoxical encomiast whose argument ultimately devours itself (for if she already governs the world as she claims, what more does she expect from Nature and the gods?). The Cantos finally demand us to accept the separation of God from Nature, but this perspective necessarily eludes all the characters, who thus remain comic naifs. Whatever forces them to confront their essential ridiculousness they violently resist. Thus the sixth Canto ends by elaborating a myth of Faunus, whose supreme sin is laugh47"Letter of the Authors," Variorumn Woirks1:i67. See Huston Diehl, "Graven Images: Protestant Emblem Books in England," RenaissanceQuarterly, 39 (1987): 49-66 for evidence of how analogous iconoclasm helped shape a distinctive rationale for Elizabethan emblem literature.
702
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
FIG.15- Second thoughts of a Renaissance artillerist. Reproduced from Flave Vegece Rene . .. dufait deguerre (1536) by permission of the Edinburgh University Li-
brary.
ing out loud. Spenser criticizes not so much the faun's desire to see Diana stripped naked of her allegorical garments, nor even his delighted amusement at the sight, but his foolish reluctanceto conceal that pleasure with quiet irony. Whether the episode would have formed the visionary core of a seventh book celebrating Constancy is unclear, for it significantly lacks any central heroic figure. Like other beings in Spenser's romance world, his knights possess demonic energies. Given free play in the world of epic, these make them supermen. Nohrnberg locates the poem's uniqueness in "the interdependence of romance, poly-
SPENSER'S
ART OF WAR
703
daemonism, and allegory," but we must square his triad by adding a fourth term: epic. Even in the epic world supermen are risky; in the
real world they become intolerable. Thus Spenser's mythicized expulsion of Pan as Faunus comically commemorates the passing of his Faerie lond of dangerously daemonized heroes. As Nohrnberg finely observes, they "are supplanted by a lesser, postheroic race whose unheroic stature thereby defines its predecessors as heroic. Such a successor race can only aspire to be heroic allegorically. ... It is out of the same paradox the concept of the antiheroic takes its
beginning" (768-73).
The Elizabethans cherished heroic aspirations that we do not, so we are tempted to see them as more than allegorical heroes. Indeed, some actually made themselves heroic. But the cost of such selffashioning was high. Ultimately Europe declined to pay it. The It is a complain style triumphed, together with l'honnete honmme. that the later seventeenth heroism survives in by century monplace in in which and Drythe ironic forms Milton literature only English den cultivate it. As Milton demolished martial heroism in Paradise Lost, Dryden brought the allusive mock-heroic style to perfection. But an anti-heroic spirit already lurked in the cultural tensions of the Elizabethan era. In the Faerie Queene "there is burlesque," as William Nelson emphasized, for sometimes "Spenser. . . recognizes the absurdity of chivalric narrative and . . . exposes it to his own amusement and that of his readers. That many passages . . . are hyper-
bolic, bathetic, and illogical few would deny. The question remains, however, whether they are so because of the poet's naivete or because of his sophistication. It is not a question that can be answered definitively."48 I think we must concede more unconscious selfparody in the poem than Nelson was eager to admit, but deliberate burlesque like Ariosto's there undoubtedly is too. Calling irony "the Drie mock," Puttenham groups it with other witty figures like "the Merry scoffe," "the civill jest," "the Broad floute," and "the Privy nippe." Like "the Fleering frump .. one of the Courtly graces," "all these be souldiers to the figure allegoria and fight under the banner
48"Spenser ludens," in A Theatrefor Spenserians, ed. Judith M. Kennedy andJames A. Reither (Toronto, 1973) 83-100. On Spenser's comic vision see also C. A. Patrides, "Spenser: The Contours of Allegorical Theology," Centennial Review, 26 (1982): 17-32.
704
RENAISSANCE
QUARTERLY
of dissimulation. "49 Nelson's final caveat is therefore a wise one. The elements of seventeenth-century mock-heroic style are held in solution by Elizabethan poetic conventions. Spenser's example shows how often they threatened to precipitate out and crystallize.
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
49TheArte of English Poesie ( 589; rpt. Menston, I968) 157-59. In addition to Gohlke 139, seeJudith Dundas, "Allegory as a Form ofWit," Studies in the Renaissance, I I (1964): 223-33.

Spenser's Art of War - Chivalric Allegory, Military Technology, A

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Spenser's Art of War - Chivalric Allegory, Military Technology, A

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Spenser's Art of War: Chivalric Allegory, Military Technology, and the Elizabethan MockHeroic Sensibility Author(s): Michael West

n the medieval romances single combat was the knightly norm.

1534 and 163

"the major bat-

roo Pe;Lst f tecroohecrbbcttaUct bctl ibfoe, pet bO,ittrtfuc Ao0

Canmae im to teuole tfettng, ti^ ono)pbt pb tattame (Ilt 3etenotSp3cWtB,-BapntetWleoifnr.a.

nti tlO bporluauemat. rfameto

it i mioprntfiwt,nt moftt attf

et civilisations, siecle," Techniques 5 (1956):77-86, Fig. 5.

9 But no illustrations that I have seen equip chariots with keen

SPENSER'S ART OF WAR

SPENSER'S ART OF WAR

SPENSER'S ART OF WAR

Rene ... Vegece Library.

dufait deguerre(i 536) by permission of the Edinburgh University

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi