Talk:The Faerie Queene

Synopsis
How about including a synopsis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPworkerbee (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The article as written is a huge exercise in pedantry, no help to anyone wishing to learn about the poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.1.177 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Canto Summary
Would it be good to include a canto summary at the end of this article by way of stating, for each book, the four-line argument such as found in Italic textThe Faerie QueeneItalic text for each canto? example: Book I: Canto I: The Patron of true Holinesse,/Foule Errour doth defeate:/ Hypocrisie him to entrape,/ Doth to his home entreate.--CurtisI 00:39, 29august 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following on from the above contributor's insightful thoughts, and CurtisI's reply, there are a couple of problems with the opening: "It is an allegorical work, written in praise of Queen Elizabeth I. Largely symbolic, the poem follows two knights, Redcrosse and Britomart, in an examination of the virtues of Holiness and Chastity." Firstly, the paragraph makes it sound as if FQ is wholly praising Queen Elizabeth, when in fact it contains a multitude of ambiguities regarding Spenser's opionion toward her, including several veiled or implied criticisms of her court. Secondly, and moore fundamentally, the poem does not just follow the travails of the two knights Redcrosse and Britomart, but a number of others who embody Temperance, Friendship, Justice and Courtesy (Sir Guyon for example, in Book II). Unfortunately I do not have time to rewrite the article at the moment, but someone else is more than welcome to correct these elements. Jay Al Prufrock (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Norton Anthology page 775
It seems like every third cite in the article references this rather dubious source. Reads like a high school term paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.1.177 (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Informal tone
This article really needs some work, preferably by someone who is an expert on Spenser and Renaissance poetry. Just to highlight what I'm talking about, here's one sentence from the character description of Artegall: "'Britomart often goes around so armored as that she is presumed a man, which leads to humorous episodes in which Amoret in Book IV, Canto I is deadly afraid of being raped by the knight that has saved her (many episodes are humorous because the reader knows the whole story and can appreciate the irony, which the characters cannot) and the Lady of Delight from Book III, canto I, quickly being taken with great lust for this knight (not even so unarmed as to betray that the knight is a female warrior) simply because this knight seems to ignore her beauty.'" Hunh? At the very least, the whole article needs to be copyedited and the tone made more scholarly.--Ibis3 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the charachter descriptions should be given their own entries?

number of public virtues?
Hello, I've skimmed through Spenser's letter to Raleigh about his plans for The Faerie Queene, and I just can't find where Spenser says he wants to write a total of 24 books. He writes about his intention of having 12 books about private virtues, and also about some possible later books about public virtues, but he doesn't seem to say that he would/might write exactly 12 books on those public virtues. I would appreciate your help in explaining this. Thank you. -- Kyok o  18:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found the answer within the letter to Raleigh. -- Kyok o  20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To what does "[In addition to] these six virtues" (under A celebration of the virtues) refer? - Leboite (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Language
The article should address what version of English the article is written in. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC). Although rather ignorant of the subject matter, I presume it was indeed a letter and not 'a giant doggie monster', (which admittedly made me laugh like a drain fro a full minute!).

December 2009, "Medieval Sources"
I have re-edited a series of edits on the supposed medieval sources, and there were some problems. Last things first: the matter of Arthur should probably be place in the "Politics" section, at least with the present content (which is hardly a source study). But most importantly, the editor who supplied a couple of claims and was asked to back it up with reliable sources, did not do so correctly, and it was obvious that they hadn't looked through those sources carefully, if they did so at all. Here is what they said: "The language of the Faerie Queene is artificially archaic, borrowing many words from 12th century Middle English that were no longer used in 16th century Early Modern English. Spenser’s primary source for these archaisms is the work of Geoffrey Chaucer, who Spenser regarded as the father of English poetry.Other sources for his archaisms are likely to include John Lydgate and Sir Thomas Malory[3]." Note 3 refers to the McElderry article, currently in the references. McElderry's article, however, says next to nothing about Chaucer; it mentions one single example pulled from Chaucer, "yond," and that word does not even occur in the FQ (according to a search performed here). It certainly doesn't say anything about Spenser pulling stuff out of the twelfth century--the article doesn't mention that century. It also does not say that Lydgate was a likely source for many archaisms (McElderry only mentions him once--in a quotation from the OED). Malory is mentioned once--but not as a source, only as an author who also produced "rambling but musical sentences." Should the material be reinserted, with references that seem to back up a claim but, on closer inspection, do not do so at all, then we are dealing with disruptive editing, and if this were English class, with academic dishonesty. I encourage the editor to continue working on the article, but to do so in accordance with Wikipedia's and other guidelines, not by stating, in essay format, an opinion and then sticking in some references; the others I will need to look at in detail also, but this is time-consuming so bear with me. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather Superficial statement
After admitting that Spenser drew from Ariosto and Tasso, the article declares "Of course, Spenser's work is on a much greater scale than these pieces, as it attempts to define itself by the eternal conflict of good versus evil". This, from a critical point of view, is a foolish statement. Literature is not football, there are no World Cups or other forms of competition. Tasso's Gerusalemme liberata is a depiction of what was at that time considered the conflict between good (Christians) and evil (Moslems). Regardless of what we may think today, Tasso was telling the story of a major event, and expressing the basic ethical values of his age (it should be added that the Chivalric values also apply to the Moslem warriors, who may be on the wrong side but nonetheless partake of the ethical values of Knighthood). As for Ariosto, his labyrinth of tales is an exploration of narration itself; it is not at all interested in the ultimate war between good and evil, but its scale cannot be said to be smaller or greater than Spenser's poem. It should be then added that any comparison between these three works is dangerous inasmuch as while we have Tasso's and Ariosto's complete poems, Spenser was unable to finish his. So value judgements on this matter are rather risky, and should be edited out, or put in a less judgmental form. --93.40.120.196 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct; I have removed that statement. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding Characters
I notice Orgoglio has his own page, but isnt even on the list of characters. Perhaps we should include him there along with Despair. Or even make a list of the "villans" of Faerie Queene as well. Just a thought. Mr. Codex (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Orgoglio to the list of characters. Goustien (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am working on a project for my Introduction to British Literature class with my professor (redcknight) and will be adding Despair to the character list along with his own page. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact my professor (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DespairFQ (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Incoming Project
Hello, everyone.

I just wanted to let you know that in the coming week, there will be lengthy additions made to this page. My college classmates and I are participating in an English project that requires us to research a topic in British history and publish our work on its respective Wikipedia page. If you have any questions, please direct them to our professor RedCKnight, who is also a Wikipedia user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redcknight).

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spenserproject (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency re "Knights of Maidenhead"?
In the "Major characters" section, "Guyon" is stated to be "the leader of the Knights of Maidenhead" but under "Satyrane" it says that "His Knights of Maidenhead win the day with Britomart's help." Is this correct? Solong2go (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely Spenser's consistent reliance on alliteration has a medieval origin, even as a conscious archaism of style? And if it does, perhaps it has pre-Chaucerian roots? The man's ear is exceptional, and some of the archaeology of his diction is surely led by it? As an elderly returnee to the Faerie Queen after more than fifty years i was hoping to find some discussion of these features in Wikipedia, but no - at least not here.Delahays (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Another aspect of the Faerie Queene worth discussing (and here) is its composition at the centre of a major Anglo-Imperialist project - the subjugation of Ireland - by a man who expressed extreme views on - for example, for the creator of its style - the extirpation of the entire Gaelic language and its associated culture.Delahays (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Outdated sources
The reference links about the Walter Crane illustrated edition, 54 (https://exhibits.library.unt.edu/spring-exhibit/walter-cranes-faerie-queene-1897) and 55 (http://blog.courtauld.ac.uk/booklibrary/tag/arts-crafts/), lead to 404 pages. — 78.22.175.158 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)