Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
Analysis of A Defence of Poetry, c. 1584 6

Analysis of A Defence of Poetry, c. 1584 6

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

S I DN EY



this objection in advance when you point out the subject in which

the excellence and worth of the artist resides. It resides (you say) in

the idea of the work, not in the work itself. But how would you

demonstrate that this explication of an idea is not itself in all parts

a fiction?

First a dissimilitude is argued, in order to make clear the

explication of an idea: the explication of an idea is not fictional in

the same sense that it is to build a castle in the air.

Next you add a comparison from the greater in order to explain the

characteristics of this fiction:

Poetry expresses notable images not only as specific but as

generic: ‘it worketh not only to make a Cyrus…’ [MP, p. 79].

You conclude the comparison of Nature and poetry with the

refutation of an objection: ‘Neither let it bee deemed…’ [MP, p. 79].

The objection is resolved by invoking differences:

It is not fitting that any person should be accused of rashness for

setting up a comparison of this kind. One should instead give the

honour to God, who allowed poetry this power. You praise God

from effect. The effect of God is argued by means of a comparison

from the lesser: [analytically paraphrases MP, p. 79, lines 21–6].

Up to this point, you have distinguished poetry by its three-fold

adjuncts, that is to say by antiquity, by community, and by names.

What follows is praise of the poetic faculty first from definition,

next from Distribution.

Poetry is an art of imitation, or of feigning. Its aim is to teach and

delight.

This is the definition (most illustrious Philip) which contains the

whole controversy: and on which, as if on the foundations of a

building, this discussion of poetry which you have undertaken

almost completely rests. Let us see, therefore, whether it explains

and defines rightly the nature of the thing defined.

You wish the nature of poetry to be understood as a kind of

feigning. But is such a feigning anything but the invention of a thing

which never existed? Whoever feigns makes logical arguments,

namely causes, effects, subjects, adjuncts, contraries, comparisons,

or the other things which have their origin in these. Thus Ovid,

100



TH E CRITICAL H E RITAG E



when he feigned the realm of the sun, feigned an efficient cause by

which it was constructed, material from which it was put together,

and adjuncts with which it was embellished. Because of this,

feigning will be the same as the invention of a thing which does not

yet exist. If this is so, then the art of feigning will pertain not to

poetry but to dialectical invention: through which not only true, but

also fictitious things, are conceived. I acknowledge that those things

which are feigned come under a different discipline—that of ethics,

to a great extent, or that of natural philosophy—no less than the

arguments which are discernible in matters pertaining to nature and

are there held in good esteem. But this same feigning, in the same

manner as the thinking out of these arguments, is the action of

either native or artificial reason in invention. Therefore when

Aristotle defines poetry as feigning, he places poetry as if in the

domain of logical invention, thereby violating the law of ?a???t?.1

And whenever poets feign, they do this not through some function

available only to poetry, but by the faculty of the art of dialectic.

Now because Aristotle wants ‘To Teach and Delight’ to be the

ends of poetry, he wants (it must be emphasized) that which in the

one case is not ?a?’a?t?, and in the other is not ?a????? p??t??.2

Since the faculty of teaching consists of arguments disposed by

proposition, syllogism, and method, it comes under dialectic rather

than poetry: and for this reason the definition of poetry does not

accord at all with the law of justice. Although delight can be derived

from the sweetness of poetry, it also flows from other sources:

namely from tropes, from figures in the repetition of sound and

from those of wise sententiae, from dignity of action [i.e. oratorical

delivery], from wise and grave judgement. Therefore ‘to delight’, in

the definition of poetry, is contrary to the law of wisdom. In other

words praise of the faculty of poetry from Aristotle’s definition is

invalid.



NOTES

1

2



I.e. the law of justice: see William Temple’s ‘Analysis’, ed. Webster, pp.

46–7.

I.e. in accord with the law of wisdom: see ibid.



101



8. Geoffrey Whitney

1586

Whitney (1548?–1601?) was a follower of the Earl of Leicester and,

when he collected and published A Choice of Emblemes, a student at the

University of Leiden. His emphasis on honey-sweet verse as a thing

of Sidney’s youthful past, and on his foreign fame, accord with the

sense of hope for purposeful Anglo-Dutch Protestant action in the

early part of 1586. The reality proved more complicated. Leicester’s

popularity rapidly declined, as Governor-General he mismanaged

his relationship both with Dutch leaders and with the queen, and

Sidney was fatally wounded in September. On Whitney in Leiden,

see Jan van Dorsten, Poets, Patrons, and Professors: Sir Philip Sidney, Daniel

Rogers, and the Leiden Humanists, Leiden, 1962, pp. 131–8.

Whitney’s poem appears under the emblem of ‘Fame armed with

a pen’, which was dedicated to Edward Dyer, Sidney having

modestly refused it. (See ibid., p. 137).

A Choice of Emblemes, Leiden, 1586, pp. 196–7.



When frowning fatall dame, that stoppes our course in fine,

The thred of noble SURREYS life, made hast for to untwine,

APOLLO chang’d his cheare, and lay’d awaie his lute, And

PALLAS, and the Muses sad, did weare a mourninge sute.

And then, the goulden pen, in case of sables cladde, Was

lock’d in chiste of Ebonie, and to Parnassus had. But, as all

times do chaunge, so passions have their space;

And cloudie skies at lengthe are clear’d, with Phoebus

chearfull face.

For, when that barren verse made Muses voide of mirthe;

Behoulde, LUSINA sweetelie sounge, of SIDNEYS joyfull

birthe.

Whome mightie JOVE did blesse, with graces from above:

On whome, did fortune frendlie smile, and nature most did

love.

And then, behoulde, the pen, was bij MERCURIUS sente,

Wherewith, hee also gave to him, the gifte for to invente.

102



TH E CRITICAL H E RITAG E



That, when hee first began, his vayne in verse to showe

More sweete then honie, was the stile, that from his penne

did flowe.

Wherewith, in youthe he used to bannishe idle fittes; That

nowe, his workes of endlesse fame, delighte the worthie

wittes.

No haulting verse hee writes, but matcheth former times,

No Cherillus,1 he can abide, nor Poëttes patched rimes.

What volume hath hee writte that rest among his frendes,

Which needes no other praise at all, eche worke it selfe

comendes.

So, that hee famous lives, at home, and farre, and neare;

For those that live in other landes, of SIDNEYS giftes doe

heare.

And such as MUSES serve, in darkenes meere doe dwell;

If that they have not seene his workes, they doe so farre excell.

Wherefore, for to extoll his name in what I might, This

Embleme lo, I did present, unto this worthie Knight.



NOTE

1



‘Horat. lib. 2 epist.1. ad Augustum.’



9. Fulke Greville

1586

Greville wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham (Sidney’s father-inlaw) soon after hearing the news of Sidney’s death (see Victor

Skretkowicz, ‘Building Sidney’s Reputation: Texts and

Editions of the Arcadia’, in Van Dorsten, Baker-Smith, and

Kinney, p. 113). How far Greville had already formulated his

later view of Arcadia as a weighty, morally unambiguous

warning to ‘Soveraign Princes [who] to play with their own



103



S I DN EY



visions, will put off publique action’ (No. 39) is uncertain; it

was perhaps influenced by the frequency of more liberal

responses to the work in the years between 1586 and 1610. It

seems likely, however, that his belief (implemented in 1590)

that The New Arcadia is ‘fitter to be printed then that first’

proceeds from a view of the revision as dealing more

extensively and emphatically with matters of state and, as

such, fulfilling Sidney’s intentions more closely than the Old

Arcadia.

Robertson, pp. lx–lxii, suggests plausibly that the ‘direction

sett down undre’ Sidney’s ‘own hand’ was equivalent to the

‘known determinations’ referred to by Sanford (No. 20),

contained ‘a few redrafted passages and some notes’ for

intended changes in the Old Arcadia Books III–V, and was sent

by Greville to the Countess of Pembroke, who incorporated

the alterations—including the significant modification of

sexual conduct of Pyrocles, Philoclea and Musidorus—in the

1593 text.

The translations of Du Bartas and Duplessis-Mornay to

which Greville refers are now lost; Florio (No. 31) was still

calling for their publication in 1603. The version of Duplessis

‘since don by an other’ is Arthur Golding’s A Work Concerning

the Trueness of the Christian Religion, which, the title-page claims,

Golding had finished for Sidney ‘at his request’ (see MP, pp.

155–7).

Letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, November, 1586, in

Ringler, p. 530, and Public Record Office, SP 12/195/33.



Sir this day one ponsonby a booke bynder in poles [=Paul’s] church

yard, came to me, and told me that ther was one in hand to print, Sir

philip sydneys old arcadia asking me yf it were done, with yor honors

consent or any other of his frends, I told him to my knowledge no,

then he advised me to give warning of it, either to the archebishope

or doctor Cosen, who have as he says a copy of it to peruse to that

end. Sir I am lothe to reneu his memori unto you, but yeat in this I

might presume, for I have sent my lady yor daughter at her request,

a correction of that old one don 4 or 5 years since which he left in

104



TH E CRITICAL H E RITAG E



trust with me wherof there is no more copies, & fitter to be printed

then that first which is so common, notwithstanding even that to be

amended by a direction sett doun undre his own hand how & why, so

as in many respects espetially the care of printing it is to be done with

more deliberation,—besydes he hathe most excellentli translated

among divers other notable workes monsieur du plessis book against

Atheisme, which is since don by an other, so as bothe in respect of the

love between plessis and him besyds other affinities in ther courses

but espetially Sir philips uncomparable Judgement, I think fit ther be

made a stei of that mercenary book to [i.e. so] that Sir philip might

have all those religous honors which ar wortheli dew to his life and

death, many other works as bartas his semayne, 40 of the psalms

[‘spalm’] translated into Myter &c which requyre the care of his

frends, not to amend for I think it fales within the reache of no man

living, but only to see to the paper and other common errors of

mercenary printing. Gayn ther wilbe no doubt to be disposed by you,

let it helpe the poorest of his servants, I desyre only care to be had of

his honor who I fear hathe caried the honor of thes latter ages with

him…. Sir I had way ted on you my selfe for aunswer because I am

Jelous of tyme in it, but in trothe I am nothing well. Good Sir think

of it.

Foulk Grevill



10. Matthew Roydon

c.1586–9

Roydon was associated at various times with Spenser, Marlowe

and Chapman. Nashe says, in his preface to Greene’s Menaphon

(1589) that he ‘hath shewed himselfe singular in the immortall

Epitaph of his beloved Astrophell, besides many other most absolute

Comike inventions’ (The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. Ronald

B.McKerrow, 5 vols, Oxford, 1958, vol. 3, p. 323). If the epitaph

was the same as the elegy, and if it was not revised between

composition and publication (for which see below) it constitutes

105



S I DN EY



the earliest known account of Astrophil and Stella. As in Spenser’s

elegy—as a source of which it should perhaps be classed—the

boundary between Sidney and Astrophil, life and work, is unclear

and Stella idealized rather than ‘identified’.

The ‘Elegie’ was first published, with those of Ralegh and

Dyer, in The Phoenix Nest (1593), and then in the Astrophel collection.

It is ‘a faux-naïf, semi-allegorical account of Sidney’s death’

(Katherine Duncan-Jones, ‘Astrophel’, in The Spenser Encyclopedia,

ed. A.C.Hamilton et al., Toronto, 1990, p. 74). The ‘friend’ of the

title ‘is unlikely to be Roydon himself, but may be some loftier

figure such as Essex or Robert Sidney’ (ibid., p. 75).

From ‘An Elegie, or friends passion, for his Astrophill’, in Colin

Clouts Come Home Again, London, 1595, sigs I3–I4v.



Within these woods of Arcadie,

He chiefe delight and pleasure tooke,

And on the mountaine Parthenie,

Upon the chrystall liquid brooke,

The Muses met him ev’ry day,

That taught him sing, to write, and say.

When he descended downe the mount,

His personage seemed most divine,

A thousand graces one might count,

Upon his lovely cheerful eine,

To heare him speake and sweetly smile,

You were in Paradise the while.

A sweete attractive kinde of grace,

A full assuraunce given by lookes,

Continuall comfort in a face,

The lineaments of Gospell bookes,

I trowe that countenance cannot lie,

Whose thoughts are legible in the eie.

Was never eie, did see that face,

Was never eare, did heare that tong,

Was never minde, did minde his grace,

That ever thought the travell long,

106



TH E CRITICAL H E RITAG E



But eies, and eares, and ev’ry thought,

Were with his sweete perfections caught.

O God, that such a worthy man,

In whom so rare desarts did raigne,

Desired thus, must leave us than,

And we to wish for him in vaine,

O could the stars that bred that wit,

In force no longer fixed sit.

Then being fild with learned dew,

The Muses willed him to love,

That instrument can aptly shew,

How finely our conceits will move,

As Bacchus opes dissembled harts,

So love sets out our better parts.

Stella, a Nymph within this wood,

Most rare and rich of heavenly blis,

The highest in his fancie stood,

And she could well demerite this,

Tis likely they acquainted soone,

He was a Sun, and she a Moone.

Our Astrophill did Stella love,

O Stella vaunt of Astrophill,

Albeit thy graces gods may move,

Where wilt thou finde an Astrophill,

The rose and lillie have their prime,

And so hath beautie but a time.

Although thy beautie do exceed,

In common sight of ev’ry eie,

Yet in his Poesies when we reede,

It is apparant more thereby,

He that hath love and judgement too,

Sees more than any other doo.

Then Astrophill hath honord thee,

For when thy bodie is extinct,

Thy graces shall eternall be,

And live by vertue of his inke,

For by his verses he doth give,

To short livde beautie aye to live.

107



Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Analysis of A Defence of Poetry, c. 1584 6

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)

×