A Response to Åke Bergvall's "Resurrection as Blasphemy in Canto 5 of Edmund Spenser's 'The Legend of Holiness'" * (2009)

Ake Bergvall clearly sets out his purpose in two statements early in his article. First, shall argue that Duessa's act of salvation is blasphemous and (consequently) ineffectual (1-2). Second, [t]he contention of this paper is that and her 'mother' Night, even as they bring linguistic confusion and stage blasphemous mock-imitation of Christ's of hell, may be suffering same fate (2). The final phrase may mean willing evil but working (2), but this may not be entirely clear.The key concept, then, is blasphemy, which Bergvall, following Andreea-Tereza Nitisor, claims be 'textual' and 'linguistic.' That linguistic writes Bergvall, can be felt in semantic confusion of canto and so forth (2). The nexus of blasphemy, linguistic profanation, and semantic confusion is bit shaky, but Bergvall offers capable and sensitive close reading of canto 5, with an emphasis on multiple readings that arise from ambiguous statements such as Duessa's Thine shield, and I, and all (1.5.11). Bergvall writes: In fact, there is no conclusive evidence which of two knights is actually addressing, or if she is rather hedging her bets (5; emphasis added). But uncertainty here is key point - lack of evidence ?s evidence. As stated in my book, Spenser's Underworld in 1590 Faerie Queene, the remark may be addressed either Rederosse or Sans Joy (she is covering her bases) (42; emphasis added). The ambiguity is purposeful, as author later seems agree: indeed, she seems more than happy exchange lovers depending on their luck in jousts (5).Duessa's falseness is another nicely developed feature of Bergvall's article, but he is at his best in deUvering insights on blasphemy, narrowly defined. His point about Messianic deUght at seeing newborn Savior in chapter 3 of Gospel of in connection with Night's mention of child, whom I haue longd see (1.5.27) is very good reading (8). So is insight, borrowed from A. C. Hamilton's note, that in stanza 26 may refer as well as others. At these two points, article deUvers on notion of blasphemy in its first statement of purpose. But there is disconnection between author's stated goal and what he actuaUy achieves insofar as true interest here - namely, confusion, developed often as falseness - is rarely blasphemous.The article's second statement of purpose, which concerns of heU, is somewhat at odds with BergvaU's assertion in paragraph 2 that his contribution is not source study. Demonstrating that canto 5 includes blasphemy requires reference as with passage from Luke and traditional understanding of Christ's of heU, which Bible originates, Fathers confirm, and texts like Langland's Piers Plowman dramatize. Or, as BergvaU admits later on, is performing false of heU, blasphemous inversion of literary sources (6). Blasphemy subverts previous statements that connect in some way religious, theological, or Christ-related context; and such subversions do not necessarily have involve confusion. Duessa's descent with Sans Joy clearly deviates from Christ's model in harrowing, but does this constitute a blasphemous inversion of literary sources, or is inversion merely parodie?There are additional weak links in argument at this point. First, say that Duessa [is] described as Christ- or Theseus-figure (6) incorrectly equates and Theseus: one is successful harrower of heU, but other must be rescued from underworld by Hercules and cannot save his friend Pirithous. As well, descends Uberate righteous, whereas descends seek healing for an evu man: contrast constitutes parody, not blasphemy. Nor does BergvaU seem know what harrowing of heU actuaUy means. According OED, means to harry, rob, spoil and is [u]sed especially in phrase harrow hell, said of Christ (harrow, 2. …