SPENSER AND SIDNEY. - Zenodo

SPENSER AND SIDNEY.

The Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford inliis recent "study in the progress of English poetry fromChaucer to Milton" has accorded the acquaintance of Spenserand Sidney an epoch-making importance. He says1): "Justthen [1578] Spenser, returning to London after two years offurther study and practice in the north of England, madethat acquaintance with Philip Sidney which disengaged themovement of English poetry in its complete force. The newVirgil had found his Gallus ... Its first result was thepublication of the ShephercCs Calendar." The character ofthis acquaintance is described by the Rev. Alexander B.Grosart, who after some thirty years remains — to the dis-credit of English scholarship — the most recent exhaustivebiographer of Spenser: according to Grosart,2) "The relationof the 'newe poete' to Sir Philip Sidney was of 'friendship'in the deepest and tenderest sense of the word." In similarvein the most recent biographer of Sidney declares3): "Ofall these men, Greville, Dyer, Philip, and Spenser, it may betruly said that they compared minds and cherished privatevirtues." He speaks of "their romantic affection for eachother". A little later he adds: "It was at the meetings of

') J. W. Mackail: The Springs of Helicon. L. 1909, p. 81, 83.f) Grosart's Spenser, I, 443. So too J. W. Haies in the Globe Spenser,

p. xxxv.3) Percy Addleshaw: Sir Philip Sidney, L. 1909, p. 252, 261. The

yalue of his judgement may be gauged by a comparison with page 266.

Brought to you by | University of ManchesterAuthenticated

Download Date | 6/2/15 6:07 PM

174 PERCT W. LONGF,

the Areopagus that Philip and Spenser became really intimate".The Areopagus, we learn,l) was "a certain club, founded, itwould appear, by Philip Sidney and Edward Dyer, and namedthe Areopagus. Just what it stood for is not altogetherclear; perhaps its founders, inspired by the recent work ofthe Pleiade in France, aimed at a general reformation ofEnglish poetry". Its ideals have been recently treated in anexhaustive monograph on The Shepherd's Calendar, the authorof which concludes2): "The Faerie Queene, many of thepoems in the volume of Complaints, the Amoretti, and theEpithalamion — may be held to represent the program ofthe Areopagus."

This arbor of vanity I propose to attack root and brauch,to demonstrate that it belongs in toto to the realm of con-jecture; that, so far äs we know, the Areopagus — far frombeing a club — was a mere figure of speech used for thenonce; that Spenser's acquaintance with Sidney, so far äsevidence establishes it, never passed greatly beyond Johnson'searly overtures to Chesterfield; that its effect upon Spenser'spoetry was momentary and aesthetically negligible.3) Letus brush away the cobwebs of tradition and fast accumulatingarchives of philological impedimenta, facing at ftrst band thescanty actual evidence.

*) R. E. Neu Dodge: The Complete Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser.B., 1908, p. xiv.

2) J. J. Higginson: Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar in Relation to Con-temporary Affairs. N. Y., 1912, p. 286.

*) Whoever regards this Jabor äs snpererogatory should consider thatthe view äs stated pereistently holds the field in geueral publication; thatwriters otherwise conservative (äs J. A. Symonds, R. E. Neu Dodge, and J.J. Higginson) accept the Areopagus; that Maynadier's refutation affectsonly the question of formal organization; that Courthope (Garn. Hist. Eng.Lit.y , 217) says that Sidney's u ardent Imagination and lofty spirit greatlystimulated him [Spenser] in the prosecution of his poetical designs"; thatW. H. Schofield (Chivalry in Eng. Lit., 1912, p. 173) avers that "Spenser'sliving ideal was Sidney"; that R. W. Church (Spenser, 1906, p. 106) hassaid: "Sidney ... had been to him not merely a cordial friend, but .. .had almost been to him what the eider brother is to the younger". G. W.Kitchin (F. Q., Bk. I, 1871, p. vi) and H. R. Fox Bourne (Memoir of SirPhilip Sidney, 1862, p. 236) earlier wrote in similar vein.



SPENSER AND S1DNEY. 175

As to the Areopagus, Higginson in the latest discussionJ)rightly notes that "all Information which is supposed tovouch for the existence of this society is agreed to lie solelyin the five Harvey - Spenser letters written in the years1579—80". No one has contested, or is likely to contest,this Statement. Yet, for a society composed in part of notablecourtiers and conspicuous enough to be compared with theFrench Pleiade, it is astonishing that we possess no evidenceapart from two letters spublished by Harvey — two letters,since the three published earlier in 1580 are irrelevant, andpublished by Harvey since Spenser had departed for Ireland.In these two letters there is but one allusion by Spenser,and but one reply to it by Harvey. These, then, deserveclose scrutiny.

Spenser, writing at Westminster 15 October 1579, says2):"As for the twoo worthy gentlemen, Master Sidneyand Master Dyer ... nowe they haue proclaimed intheir [not our] άρειω πάγω a generall surceasing andsilence of balde rymers, and also of the verie besteto: in steade whereof, they haue, by authoritie oftheir whole Senate, prescribed certaine Lawes: hauinghad thereof already great practise and drawen meeto their faction."

To infer from this passage the existence of a literary society,it is necessary to assume that a number of persons ratherthan two are contemplated. The expression whole Senatedoes suggest a number, unless taken jocosely, s by G. H.Maynadier.3) That Harvey took it s a complimentarypleasantry, and that he understood the passage s referringto two persons only is clear from bis reply4):

" Your [not their] new-founded ίχρειω παγον I honouremore, than you will or can suppose: and make greateraccompte of the twoo worthy Gentlemenne, than of

*) Op. dt., p. 257. So too J. B. Fletcher (Jour. of Germ. Ph ol., Π,430) and G. H. Maynadier (Mod. Lang. Review, IV, 293). In the last is givenan adequate resumo of the history of modern allusions to the Areopagus.

*) Grosart's Harvey, I, 7.8) Mod. Lcwg. Review, IV, 298—9.4) Grosart's Harvey, I, 20.



176 PBECY W. LONG,

the two hundreth Dionisij Areopagitae, or the veryenotablest Senatours, that euer Athens dydde affourdeof that number."

In balancing the "twoo worthy Gentlemenne" against "Se-natours" s well s "Areopagitae", Harvey shows that heunderstood Sidney and Dyer to constitute the "whole Senate"alluded to by Spenser. In styling it "your [Spenser's] new-founded άρειω παγον", he implies that the idea is new to him,and that it is Spenser's idea — Spenser's figure of speech.If there had been a club, Harvey, Publishing a year laterwith ample opportunity for Information, could have changedor enlarged this passage; yet bis phraseology remains a mereb rden to Spenser's piping. Not only does he fail to Anglicizethe Greek term; he gives it a different case ending. Our twosources of Information have dwindled to one; our club to amembership of two.

An άρειος πάγος of two Senators augurs ill for definiteorganization. It is the expressions new-founded, faction, andSenate which have suggested one. Of these, however, thefirst is Harvey's, and is untrustworthy, since he makes Spenserthe founder, whereas Spenser's phraseology implies subsequentassociation — "and have drawen mee to their faction".Faction need mean no more than "following" or "way ofthinking". Senate, it is evident, was intended to be merelyfigurative.

What were the "Lawes" prescribed by Sidney and Dyer,and accepted by Spenser? Instead of a "program" comparableto that of the Plfeiade, those mentioned by Spenser in thisconnection are "certaine Lawes and rules of Quantities ofEnglish sillables for English verse" — and nothing eise.Harvey's use of classical metres proved so little in accordwith these laws that Spenser later wrote (10 April 1580) 9:"I would hartily wish, you would either send me the Rulesand Precepts of Arte, which you obserue in Quantities, oreise followe mine, that M. Philip Sidney gaue me, being thevery same which M. Drant deuised, but enlarged with M.Sidneys own iudgement and augmented with my Obseruations,

l) Grosart's Harvey, I, 36.



SPENSER AND BIDNEY. 177

that we might both accorde." From other passages we learnthat Spenser showed some of Harvey's experiments to Dyer,who professed to like them; and we read two specimens ofSpenser's own. Harvey does not know, but will gladly see,Drant's rules: he suggests that Sidney and Dyer inay havegot from him the notion of promoting classical versiflcation.Cetera desunt.

Such are the facts — the basis of a folio of conjectures.However plausibly we may assume that several members ofSidney's circle talked with one another about a variety ofliterary matters, it is surely uncritical to create any Impressionof an organized author's club or coterie for which no evidenceexists. To compare this with so definite and concerted amovement äs we associate with the French Pleiade, to applyto an extended hypothetical program a name which Spenserand Harvey used solely in connection with classical versi-fication is inevitably misleading. Indeed, so far were Sidneyand Dyer from general accord in literary tastes that Spenserin this very passage says in allusion to Sidney's reception ofGosson's School of Ahuse: "Such mighte I happily incurre,entituling My Slomber, and the other pamphlets, unto hishonor. I meant them rather to Maister Dyer." The termAreopagus ought to be either veracionsly delimited, or —better yet — dropped entirely from our accounts of Englishliterature.

Our knowledge that Spenser and Sidney were personallyacquainted rests on the same basis, namely, the Harvey-Spenser correspondence of 1579—80; for Spenser, curiouslyenough, nowhere eise deflnitely implies that he held conversewith Sidney; nor do I know of any other contemporaryallusion to or implication of an acquaintance which involvedpersonal contact. This absence of Information would not,indeed, be so surprising, were it not for Spenser'snumerous allusions to Sidney, Sidney's published criticismof the Shepherd's Calendar, and the frequency withwhich their names are coupled, äs by Webbe,*)

l) Arber's Webbe, p. 35. Webbe, hinting that Spenser wrote theShepherd's Ccdendar, and speaking of its dedication, says nothing implyingacquaintance.

Aoglia. N. F. XXVI. 12



178 fcERCY W. LOtfö,

Nash,1) and Meres,2) in lists of authors. Thus Harvey else-where often names their work together, äs where in A NewLetter,*) he calls them "both delicate Writers always gallant,often braue, continually delectable, sometimes admirable"; butnever does he speak of them äs associated personally. Greville,in writing the life of bis intimate friend Sidney, never mentionsSpenser. Wherever we look, we are thrown back upon theevidence of two letters, for again the three others contain nonotice of further contact.

These two letters require close examination. Since Harveyedited these letters in Spenser's absence, it is worth while torecord a reference to Harvey's practices made by Nash — anauthor friendly to Spenser and in close association with Sidney'sfamily. Nash says of Harvey4): "Having found ... that noworke of his, absolute under bis own name, would passe, heused heretofore to drawe Sir Philip Sidney, Master Spencer,and other men of highest credit, into everie pild pamphlet heset foorth." Nash (I, 327) even accuses Harvey of forgingSpenser's sonnet in praise of Harvey: "(Gabriell) though Ivehemently suspect it to bee of thy owne doing, it is poptfoorth under M. Spenser's name." This we cannot credit, andit would be an extreme of scepticism to distrust the evidenceof the letters5): only, they must be read äs tending not tominimize, but if anything to exaggerate the acquaintance;and it will be feit to be significant that Harvey's personageis in each place conspicuous.

Spenser, in his letter of 15 October 1579, says: "MasterSidney and Master Dyer, they haue me, I thanke them, insome use of familiarity: of whom and to whome what speachepasseth for youre credit and estimation I leave your seife toconceive." He promises to show Harvey's verses "to MaisterSidney and Maister Dyer, at my nexte going to the courte".

J) MC. Kerrow's Nash, Index.2) Ed. Arier Reprints, p. 22.8) Grosart'« Harvey, I, 266.4) MC. Kerrow's Nash, III, 35.5) Spenser had Sidney's personality clearly in eye where he writes: —

"And he himselfe eeemed made for meriment,Merily maskiug both in bowre and hall." —

Astrophel, 11. 27—8.



8PENSER AND SIDNEY, 179

He has written pamphlets, s My Slomler, with Dyer inmind. He begs for good news from Harvey, — " s gentleMaster Sidney, I thanke bis good worship, hath required ofme, and so promised to doe againe". In the letter of 10 April1580 we hear no more of any ineeting with Sidney, but onlyof Dyer's liking some verses by Harvey and of the rules"that Master Philip Sidney gave me", and to which Spenserhad alluded on 16 October 1579. To this the letters byHarvey have nothing to add.

Consider the needy aspirant and the court favorite fromthe point of view of contemporary drama, Satire, or picaresquenovels, and it will be seen that Spenser's modest claim to"some use of familiarity" need imply no more than a veryfew casual meetings in which the themes of conversationwere classical versification — and Harvey. Sidney's interestin the former was real, s shown by the verses of Ms Arcadia.His inquiry concerning Harvey is natural, possibly becauseof his uncle Leicester's patronage, but probably because of afulsome eulogy in Latin verse which Harvey had addressedto Sidney in the summer of 1578.J) Its seventy lines containno hint of personal acquaintance. Courtesy demanded Sidney'sinquiry. But, to quote Nash again2): "Sir Philip Sidney (bylittle and little) began to look askance on him, and not tocare for him, though utterly shake him off he could not, heewould so fawne and hang upon him." No good topic this forrenewed Interviews between Sidney and Spenser; and Spenserat least had declared himself (15 October 1579) shy of "ovei*-much cloying their noble eares". Such direct testimony swe possess records, therefore, but a single meeting and impliesnot many more.

As a basis for inferences, the dedication of the Shepherd'sCalendar to Sidney affords the reverse of evidence of furtheracquaintance. "Goe, little booke: thy seife present", saysSpenser, "As child whose parent is unkent" (unknown).Sidney's allusion to it in his Apologie for Poetrie does notimply knowledge of its authorship. Moreover, the formal

>) Published in Χαίρε, 1578, Pt. IV. See Grosart's Harvey.2) MC Kerrow's Nash, ΠΙ, 116.

12*



180 PERCY W. LONG,

dedication to Sidney should not obscure theearlier1) intimatededication to Harvey. In the prefatory letter to Harvey,"E. K commendeth the good lyking of this bis labour, andthe patronage of the new poete." Toward the end he againaddresses "mine own good Maister Harvey, to whom I have... vowed this my labour, and the maydenhead of this ourcommon frends poetrie". He recommends the author toHarvey "äs unto bis most special good frend". Since thisletter implies that the work was substantially complete, sinceits postscript is dated 10 April 1579, and since Spenser inbis letter of 15 October 1579 still is in doubt äs to whom toaddress in the formal dedication, the Calendar clearly was notwritten for Sidney or under Sidney's influence. The dedicationappears to have resulted from the conversations implied inthe Harvey-Spenser correspondence: it shows no sign ofpermission granted; rather Spenser adjures bis book "Cravepardon for my hardyhedde". Neither poems nor gloss — sorieh in personal references — contain any allusion (yet de-ciphered) to Sidney.2)

Sidney's attitude regarding Spenser is an oracle of silence.His letters contain no allusion to Spenser;3) bis writings ingeneral, äs far äs has yet been suggested, no allusion. Hedoes once speak of the Shepherd's Calendar — dedicated tohim — distinguishing its merit, objecting to its archaisms,and dismissing it äs "indeede worthy the reading if I be notdeceiued". The reference, in view of the worth of Spenser'spoetry, appears no more than justice äs well äs courtesy de-manded: it savors notbing of friendship. Nor have we anycontemporary or well authenticated evidence that Sidney other-wise recognized or rewarded Spenser for bis labor.

At the death of Sidney, when the English court forseveral months wore mourning — so highly was he esteemed— both universities put forth poetical collections of laments.

*) That "already in the beginning dedicated it to ... Sidney" refersto the beginniug of the book, and is a subsequent Interpolation, becomeeevident from whose in the sücceeding sentence, which must refer to theauthor and not to Sidney.

2) "Southern shepherdes boye" (April, 1. 2i) is now understood toallude to Spenser's position äs secretary to the Bishop of Rochester.

8) Grosart's Spenser, I, 455.



8PENSER AND SIDNET. 181

In that of Cambridge1) are poems signed by some fortypersons, five of which bear the Initials G. H. [Gabriel Harvey?]:there is no poem by Spenser; there is no mention of Spenser,even under bis pastoral name Colin. Equally, in the "Peplus"issued from Oxford, even in the eclogue, there is no allusionto him. Considering Spenser's position — bis authorship ofthe Calendar was already hinted at in print in Webbe; con-sidering that he was still accessible in Dublin in 1586, andthat from Sidney's death 17 October 1586 there was ampletime; considering that be was not unable to write Latin verse(witness bis letter of 15 October 1579) — Spenser's silenceon this occasion is damaging to any idea of "friendship inthe deepest and tenderest sense of the word". Or did Spensershrink from the throng of Sidney's admirers, reserving bisexpression of sorrow for a more adequate occasion?

When Spenser returned to London in 1589 to bring outbis Faerie Queene — dedicated to the Queen, who had prizedSidney — he appended to the poem several sonnets addressingcourt patrons. On second thoughts he added seven more(which did not appear in the first issue);2) and the last ofthese addenda was addressed to Sidney's sister — then animportant patron. The excuse is that she resembles herbrother, "that most Heroicke spirit", —

"Who first my Muse did lift out of the flore,To sing bis sweet delights in lowlie laies."

What these lays were we know not: certainly they are notextant, nor do we hear of them elsewhere. Most naturallythe passage would be taken to allude to his dedication of theCalendar. But the sonnet is noteworthy also äs a contrastto its mates. In it appears no indication that Spensercelebrates Sidney in his epic, or — äs in the case of Essex —will celebrate him. Indeed. Sidney is not known to be por-trayed anywhere in the Faerie Queene.*) See, however, in

*) Academiae Cantabrigiensis Lachrymae Tumulo Nobilissimi Equitis,D. Philippi Sidneij Sacratae per Alexandrum Nevillum. L., John Windet,Febr. 16, 1587.

*) Ralph Church: The Faerie Queene, L. 1758, I, ii.s) See "Speiiser's Sir Calidore". Engl. Studien, 1910.



182 PERCY W. LONG,

what terms he addresses Oxford — Sidney's pronouncedenemy. Receive this book, he says, and defend it fromenvy, —

"Sith th' antique glory of thine ancestryUnder a shady vele is therein writ,And eke thine owne long living memory ...Deare äs thou art unto thy seife, so loveThat loves and honours thee, äs doth behove."

Another of the most intimate and cordial sonnets is addressedto the Earl of Ormond, with whom Sidney was no less atodds. It is a lukewarm friendship that leaves a friendwithont memorial, but gives lasting fame to that friend'senemy.

An opportunity to retrieve was thrust upon Spenser inThe Euines of Time. Again addressing Sidney's sister, in adedicatory letter he states that certain friends have been"upbraiding me, for that I have not shewed anie thankefullremembraunce towards him or any of them [the Dudleys], butsuffer their names to sleep in silence and forgetfulnesse".Here he styles Sidney "the Patron of my young muses",mentions "with howe straight bandes of duetie I was tied tohim", and declares that there are "deepe sowed in my brestthe seede of most entire love and humble affection unto thatmost brave Knight, your noble brother deceased: which, takingroote, began in his life time some what to bud forth, and toshew themselves to him, äs then in the weakenes of theirflrst spring". The concluding phrase connotes slight intimacy.The words patron and duetie imply no more than the dedica-tion of the Calendar and Spenser's Service under Leicester.We encounter no evidence of favor or familiarity — onlySpenser's admiration.

The poem teils the same story. It celebrates Sidney onlyincidentally äs one of the Dudleys, and from its numerousapostrophes appears to be a revamping of the work whichSpenser wrote of to Harvey in April 1580 in the postscript —"Of my Stemmata Dudleiana, and specially of the sundryapostrophes therein." In the poem Spenser represents him-self — "his Colin, carelesse Colin Cioute" — äs Leicester'spoet, not Sidney's (1.225); from Leicester he received favor



SPEN8ER AND 8IDNEY. 183

(1.232); for not celebrating Leicester he has been to blame(11. 229—30). It will be recalled that Spenser with Harvey'sapproval considered dedicating the Calendar to Leicester(letter 15 October 1579), and that he undertook the FaerieQueene (gloss to the Caletidar, October, 1. 47) to celebrateLeicester äs Arthur. Sidney was Leicester's nephew. ßutthe stanzas devoted to Sidney contain nothing personal —only the lament of the wailing women of Verlame, and praiseof Sidney's verse:

"That whilest thou livedst, madest the forrests ring,And fields resownd, and flocks to leap and daunce,And shepheards leave their lambs unto mischaunce,To runne thy shrill Arcadian Pipe to heare:0, happie were those dayes, thrice happie were!"

To read into this passage (11. 325—9) a reminiscence ofAreopagus evenings might tempt the fancy, were Sidney notthe last person likely to read his verse in Company. Indeed,Sidney's poems can hardly have been widely known in hislifetime, for Webbe in 1586 does not so nrnch äs mentionSidney in his list of English poets. The apostrophe certainlyexpresses admiration — an admiration which all Englandshared — and especially in its envoy:

" Immortall spirite of Philisides ...Give leave to him that lov'de thee to lamentHis losse."

But admiration does not imply intimacy, and in this poemadmiration was prescribed.

Again in Colin Clout Spenser introduces naention of Sidneyäs the chief of courtly poets. After naming ten prominentpoets, he adds (1. 450):

"But while äs Astrofell did live and raine,Amongst all these was none his paragone."

Here, equally, reminiscence was called for, both in view ofSidney's quality äs a poet and because this poem was printedwith a series of laments for Sidney. The scant two linescontrast, however, with lengthy passages in praise of Gorges,Stanley, Daniel, Kaleigh, and Alabaster (the secretary of theearl of Essex). Moreover, they challenge comparison with



184 PERCY W. LONG,

Spenser's elaborate account in that poem of bis encounter andjourney with bis neigboring landlord Raleigh, of Raleigh'slistening to Spenser's verse and reading bis own, of Raleigh'sintroducing Spenser at court, and — in the introductoryletter — of Raleigh's favor, and bis opinion of Spenser's being"alwaies ydle". Given occasion, the poet could be circum-stantial enough. Thus, we know from bis letter of April, 1580,of bis translating verses to Harvey "ex tempore in bed, thelast time we lay togither in Westminster".

Not a little, then, may be looked for in the ensuinglament entitled Astrophel, which Spenser tardily (1595)published in memory of Sidney. One of bis friends, LodowickBryskett, in the same volume represents himself äs Lyconconversing with Spenser äs Colin. He details (11. 85—90) bisown ramblings with Sidney:

"Lycon unfortunate ...Where is become thy wonted happie state,(Alas!) wherein through many a hill and dale,Through pleasant woods, and many an unknowne way,Along the bankes of many silver streamesThou with him yodest, and with him didst scaleThe craggie rocks of th' alpes and Appenine,Still with the Muses sporting ..."

In view of these unmistakable reminiscences, and consideringSpenser's extended and intimate contact with Bryskett, wemust consider it significant that he in no wise representsSpenser äs associated with Sidney.1) No more does Spenser.Astrophel contains no reminiscence of personal acquaintance,and but one of personal affection.

Since subjective judgements vary, and Grosart avers:2)"Astrophel ... is all a-thrill with a 'friend's' emotion andglistening with tears", it seems worth while to cite äs typicalof later criticism the incidental Statement of Solincourt3):"Had it [Astrophel] been written soon after the death ofSidney, it would surely have been less entirely conventional

J) There is indeedreference toSidney's patronage (1.142): "Colin ...(Whose lerned muee thou cherisht most wbyleare)."

*) Grosart's Spenser, I, 452.») ErnestdeSolincourt: Spenser's Minor Poems. Oxford, 1910, p. xxiii.



SPBNSER AND SIDNEY. 185

in its expression of grief."1) Yet Spenser here makes an avowalof even super-Grasprtian affection. The shepherd Astrophellies wounded. Then (11.148-50):

"His dearest love [Stella], him dolefully did beare.The dolefulest beare that ever man did see,Was Astrophel, but dearest unto mee!"

I submit that Spenser here commits a crass impropriety inchallenging comparison of his affection with that of Stella, —merely, it would seem, for a rhyme. It is evidence of worknot heartfelt but perfunctory.

One pious care which might have been expected hadSpenser and Sidney formed any close literary association —"that acquaintance ... which disengaged the movement ofEnglish poetry in its füll force" — is the poet's interest inhis patron's literary remains. When Sidney's novel (or proseepic) and sonnet sequence were published — to say nothingof the Apologie for Poetrie — Spenser's interest in such workwas acute. He was in London, in the heyday of his fame.Yet Spenser's band nowhere appears in connection with either:it is Nash who prefaces Astrophel and Stella — Nash, a deepadmirer of both Spenser and Sidney, who repeatedly couplestheir work äs eminent, yet never implies they were acquainted.

To obtain any such Statement, one searches in vain theearly biographies of Spenser. Drummond, Camden, Sir JamesWare, and Füller mention among his patrons Grey, Raleigh,and Essex, but do not speak of Sidney. It is in 1675 —fifteen years after the Restoration — that the first Statementappeared, in Edward Phillips Theatrum Poetarum Angli-canorum —

"His 'Shepherd's Calendar', which so endeared him tothat noble patron of all vertue and learning Sir PhilipSidney, that he made him known to Queen Elizabeth,and by that means got him preferred to be secretaryto his brother Sir Henry Sidney."

Though Phillips be Milton's nephew — and Milton hadbeen patronized by a patroness of Spenser — his account istoo erroneous in various particulars to he trustworthy in the

See also R. Shafer: "Spenser's Astrophel". M. L. Notes, Nov. 1913.



186 PERCY W. LONG,

one here relevant, since (1) Henry was Philip's father, notbrother; (2) Spenser after the publication of the Calendar wassecretary to Grey, not Sidney; (3) grant that he was secretaryto Sidney in 1577, the Calendar can hardly have been readyto show to a patron, äs this would require, in 1576; (4) anintroduction to the Queen would not be other than formal'means' to get an appointinent made by his father (or brother).

The second account is sufficiently circumstantial. Just aCentury after the publication of the Calendar, in an edition ofSpenser's works, the anonymous biographer relates that Spenserone morning at Leicester House read to Sidney from theFaerie Queene (I, ix, 28—30), so delighting him that Sidneygave at the first stanza fifty pounds but at the second changedthis to one hundred and at the third to two hundred pounds."After this Mr. Spenser, by degrees, so far gained upon hiin,that he became not only his Patron, but his friend too; entredhim at Court, and obtain'd of the Queen the Grant of a Pentionto him äs Poet Laureat." Clearly this writer needs not thecaution, while telling one to teil a big one. But apart fromits rhetorical embellishment, the account breaks down in thatSpenser's pension was granted years after Sidney's death andafter the publication of the Faerie Queene. Subsequentbiographers have, of course, universally discredited it. *) Theauthor in valid facts follows Camden verbatim: an exampleof his additions is that Spenser completed his epic, which waslost by a servant. "In this ill posture of his affairs hereturn'd into England, where his losses redoubled by the lossof his generous Friend Sir Philip Sidney." But Sidney diedbefore three books were completed.

To resume: we have through Harvey Spenser's assurancethat he did converse with Sidney once, and presumablyseveral times, about classical versiflcation and Harvey. Therest is conjecture — a festoon of plausibilities. NaturallySpenser must have desired intimate acquaintance with "therendezvous of all worth". If he obtained it, his silence andthat of all contemporaries — especially of persons who (äsGreville, Nash, Bryskett) knew both — is astonishing.

*) Hughes: Works of Spenser, L. 17t5, I, iv; John Upton: FaerieQueene, L. 1758, I, v.



SPENSER AND SIDNEY. 187

Though Spenser in all probability was of gentle birth,1) itis impossible to overlook the immense disparity of socialStatus between this ex-sizar and the heir to the chief 4f avoriteof the Queen. Spenser's fame äs a poet was not yet won.Intimacy and favor with Sidney would have been exceptionalgood fortune. Yet where is his sense of gratitude, so ex-ceptionally and repeatedly evidenced in the case of Leicester,shown markedly for Sidney? The very publication of Astrophel(so late äs 1595) may be taken chiefly äs a bid for new favorfrom his patron Essex (Sidney's boon companion) through LadyEssex (Sidney's widow), to whom it is dedicated.2)

After all, the chief significance of this topic is its bearingupon the literary indebtedness of either or the execution byboth of a concerted literary program. Fox-Bourne, speakingfor Sidney's development, says: "To Sidney the friendshipthat sprang up between them was, in literary ways, far moreessential than to Spenser. To it we must mainly attributeall the seriousness that there was in Sidney's work äs anauthor." This influence must manifest itself in either (1) theimpulse to write, or (2) the character of the writing. As tothe first, it chances that, in each of Sidney's writings theimpulse is very clear. The Lady of the May was occasionedby the Queen's visit to his uncle in May 1578, before (so faräs we have any reason to believe) either Harvey or Spenserhad met Sidney. The Apologie for Poetrie is a counter toGosson.2) The Arcadia owes its Inspiration to foreign proseromances. It was Spenser, not Sidney, who was drawn töthe faction of classical versiflcation, in which Sidney seemsto have been guided partly by Drant. Astrophel and Stellacan hardly owe its Inspiration to a poet whose own work inthis line does not appear till a decade later — after Sidney's,

*) Apart from his claim of relationship with the Spencers of Althorpewhich he says they admitted — Spenser is styled hy Harvey UE. S. deLondon in comitatu Middlesex gentleman" (Harvey's Letterbook. CamdenSoc., 1884, p. 64). So Sir James Ware, in his preface to Spenser's tract onIreland, says: "Hee was borne in London of an ancient and noble family."

*) Spenser does say (Prelude, 1.16) that they are " Made not to pleasethe living* but the dead". But this is by way of apology for their pastoralcharacters — äs addressed to shepherds rather than "any nycer wit".

8) Cf. A. S. Cook: Sidney's Defense of Poesy, P. .



188 PEROY W. LONG,

and after the fashion had become wide spread. Nor can thegeneral Impulse to write be credited to Spenser, when Sidneynot only had written before they met but had been broughtup on II Cortegiano, esteeming the accomplishment part ofthe equipment of a gentlemen.

As to the character of the writing, we have seen thatin the matter of versification Sidney was the leader, not thefollower. Spenser's most conspicuous peculiarity — thearchaisms — " that same framing of bis style to an old rusticlanguage", Sidney "dare not allow". Nor will any one, Ithink, compare the flowing prose of Sidney with the morepedantic style of Spenser, an offshoot of the school of Chekeand Ascham and Wilson. In manner, Sidney does writepastoral and employ allegory. But the former, used forexample by Barclay and Googe, was no more an innovationthan the latter, then conspicuous in Gascoigne and Lyly. Thusthe possible field for any momentous influence — since not ingenre or style — shrinks to incidental (and äs yet unnoted)indebtedness and to the opinions expressed in Sidney's Apologiefor Poetrie and Spenser's never published work entitled TheEnglish Poet. Here, since Sidney alludes to the Calendar andsince the gloss speaks of Spenser's book äs complete, if wetake the gloss at face value,1) Spenser clearly has priority.But Sidney does not indicate indebtedness to Spenser: hedismisses English poetry with a page, commending Troilus,the Mirror for Magistrates, Surrey's lyrics, and Gorboduc.He mentions elsewhere Gower and More's Utopia. Many more,and very different, are the English works mentioned bySpenser's commentator. He mentions none but Chaucer andGower that Sidney mentions. In lieu he does mention PiersPlowman, Lydgate, Skelton, and Gascoigne. To be sure,Sidney's attention is fixed rather on foreign, and mainlyclassical, literature. Even here, however, the correspondencesare confined to the few most familiär names. Sidney does notmention Marot, whom Spenser imitates. Among Italians, both

l) If E. K.'s allusion is an insertion, occasioned by Sidney's attitudetoward Gosson, and naming a projected anticipation of Sidney's Apologie,E. K.'s failure to cite the book repeatedly is more easily understood. Butthen Sidney cannot have been influenced by it.



SPENSER AND SIDNEY, 189

name Boccaccio, Petrarch, and Sannazaro; E. K. adds Mantuan,Aretino, and "Madonna Coelia"; Sidney adds Dante, Bembo,Bibbieno, Pontano, Landino, and Ariosto. The lists sliow, ifanything, divergence of tastes rather than correspondence ina concerted movement. Moreover, in tlie only known viewwhich Spenser expressed in The Lnglish Poet bis conceptioncontradicted Sidney's. Poetry, says E. K. in the argumentprefacing the October eclogue, is "rather no arte, but a diuinegift and heauenly instinct not to bee gotten by laboure andlearning, but adorned with both: and poured into the witteby a certaine , and celestial Inspiration, ästhe Author hereof eis where at large discourseth, in bis bookecalled the English Poete". This inspirational character ofpoetry, found in Plato, Sidney disclaims (p. 43): "He [Plato]attributeth unto poesy more than myself do, namely to be avery inspiring of a divine force, far above man's wit." Ifthis matter be taken, and it has been so taken, äs a "rootprinciple", then the "simultaneous enunciation" must be re-garded äs the reverse of "concerted action". But, surveyingSidney's criticism äs a whole, its sources have been pointedout sufficiently, äs by A. S. Cook, to render hypothecation ofmarked influence from Spenser superfluous. Therefore histotal indebtedness to Spenser — any detail of which remainsyet to be pointed out — cannot be considerable.

On the other hand, what, apart from a few transitoryexperiments in classical versification, did Spenser owe toSidney? Here we have every reason ä priori to look fordistinct influence. Spenser's admiration for Sidney, äs welläs his self-interest in seeking patronage, might well promptit. We have his own Statement that he followed Sidney'slead so far äs to forsake rhyme. And scholars have generallyassumed a considerable influence. Mackail, for example, says(p. 83): "On Spenser at all events (äs through Spenser on thewhole subsequent course of English Poetry) the influence ofSidney was momentous." With more liraited coup d'oeil G.H. Maynadier — wholly sceptical äs to the Areopagus —concedes (p. 301) that "the serious and enthusiastic literarytalks of Spenser, Sidney, and Dyer had notable results".

l) Compare J. J. Higginson, op. cü., p. 262.



190 PERCY W. LONG,

Among these he rightly instances Sidney's probable encourage-ment of the Faerie Queene. A certain W. L. in four com-mendatory stanzas published with the Faerie Queene in 1590reports this äs follows:

"When Spenser saw the fame was spredd so large,Through Faery land, of their renowned Queene,Loth that bis Muse should take so great a Charge,As to such haughty matter to be scene,To seeme a shepeheard then he made bis choice;But Sidney heard him sing, and knew bis voice ...And äs Ulysses brought faire Thetis sonneFrom bis retyred life to menage armes:So Spenser was by Sidney's speaches wonneTo blaze her fame ...He is excused, sith Sidney thought it fit."

This apologia is unequivocal: according to its account — despiteUlysses — Spenser had the enterprise in mind, and Sidneyencouraged him to execute it. This is not matter of Inspiration,but merely of a few kind words. Yet J. J. Higginson (p. 256)would make these verses " allege that Sidney persuaded Spenserto write the Faerie Queene in honor of Queen Elizabeth".To the contrary, Spenser himself definitely fixes elsewhere theresponsibility for bis Inspiration. In the October ecloguePierce urges Cuddie to forsake pastoral poetry and sing ofarms: he suggests the Queen and "the worthy whom sheloveth best" — Leicester, according to E. K's gloss. Cuddieadmits that Virgil did just this at the instance of Maecenas,but adds that poetical matter is now lacking. When Piercestill urges him, Cuddie replies (1. 88): "For Colin fittes suchfamous flight to scanne." Cuddie, then, is the Sponsor. Atthe moment we are not concerned who Cuddie is; suffice itthat he is not Sidney.1) Harvey, in bis letter to Spenser,returning the Faerie Queene, says: "Master Collin Cioute isnot every body, and albeit bis olde Companions, Master Cuddyand Master Hobbinoll" ... Sufficit! As a companion of formerdays, therefore not of bis London acquaintance, and associatedwith Harvey (Hobbinoll), Cuddie cannot be Sidney. Piers

*) Cuddie speaks in Colin Clout, which praises Sidney dead.



SPENSER AND SIDNEY, 191

equally cannot be Sidney, since in the May eclogue (11.17—18)he contrasts himself with "Younkers" äs a man "of eiderwitt". But that Sidney did know of and encourage Spenser'sproject we have no reason to doubt. To know it, he needbut have read the Calendar. To encourage it was but loyaltyto his uncle and his Queen. The project is in accord withbis known literary tastes, not only from the nature of theArcadia, but from a passage in the Apologie for Poetrie (p. 39):"I dare undertake Orlando Furioso or honest King Arthurwill never displease a soldier." Spenser's design was to rivalAriosto by a story involving Arthur: Sidney's sentence wasin effect a covert encouragement.

That Sidney influenced the Calendar, äs alleged by Machailand Maynadier among many, dates forbid us to consider, äshas been adequately shown by J. J. Higginson in his extendedmonograph (pp. 260—286). But Higginson infelicitously con-cedes (p. 286) that " Spenser's later work — the Faerie Queene,many of the poems in the volume of Complaints, the Amoretti,and the Epithalamion — may be held to represent the pro-gram of the Areopagus ". Amend the hydra-headed " Areopagus"to "Sidney", and something may be conceded in regard tothe sonnet sequences. But it becomes necessary to distinguishSidoey's influence äs an acquaintance from his influence post-numously äs an author. The Elizabethan epidemic of sonnetsequences began with the publication of Sidney's. On theother band, its composition is regarded äs subsequent toSpenser's departure to Ireland. ') The Epithalamion was com-posed more than a dozen years thereafter. The poems in theComplaints — which poems? — And what features of theFaerie Queene? —

I hold no brief that Sidney and Spenser respectivelyshow no literary indebtedness, that their acquaintance neverpassed beyond the barest formalities, that they never met bymutual design. The evidence before me neither proves nor

*) It is unlikely that Sidney's sonnets circulated widely in his life-time; for the author of The Arte of English Poesie — surely well ac-quainted with courtly writers — names Sidney (ed. Arher, p. 4) only for"eglogue" and "pastorall Poesie". To him the sonnets are apparentlyunkiiown: he does not name Sidney in his list of amorist poets.



192 PERCY W. LONG, 8PENSER AND SIDNEY,

disproves these Statements. They offer fields for conjecture.But with all the accumulation of scholastic comment now invogue, with all the picturesque theories advanced on slightfoundation and refuted only by long-winded diligence, it seemspreferable to go little further than facts warrant. Suchwriters äs R. E. Neu Dodgel) and J. J. Higginson have äs arule shown this conservative spirit. The latter closes bisdiscussion of the personal relations of Sidney and Spenserwith Spenser's phrase, "The Patron of my young Muses".This is vague: patrons vary from the activity and cordialityof Maecenas to that of Chesterfield. I prefer Shelley's line— which Spenser's style of compliment would sanction: "Thedesire of the moth for the star." As to the Areopagus, themisuse of the term has gone to a point which, I believe,Professor J. B. Fletcher must deprecate no less than L

') Works of Spenser, p. xv.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY 16. July 1913.

PERCY W. LONG.



SPENSER AND SIDNEY. - Zenodo

Documents

Transcript of SPENSER AND SIDNEY. - Zenodo