Parody and Its Implications in Sydney's Defense of Poesie Author(S): Arthur F

Rice University

Parody and Its Implications in Sydney's Defense of Poesie Author(s): Arthur F. Kinney Source: Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 12, No. 1, The English Renaissance (Winter, 1972), pp. 1-19 Published by: Rice University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/449970 . Accessed: 22/12/2013 19:48

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 [email protected].

Rice University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Parodyand Its Implications inSydney's Defenseof Poesie A R TH UR F. KINNE Y

Sir Philip Sidney's Defense of Poesie consciouslyparallels and bur- lesques Stephen Gosson's Schoole of Abuse (1579) in form (the classical oration), issues (listed in Sidney's reprehensio), authorities,and even illustrationsas well as in style, notably the use of euphuism.This was because Sidney recognized that-although he disagreed with Gosson's apparent position against all poetry and the simplicityand crudityof Gosson's work-his disagreementwith Gosson was not a substantial one; he resortedto parody to mask the similarityof his own argument in his "Defense." Since the comparison of texts demonstrateshow clearly this was the case, we must now redate the compositionand distributionof Sidney's treatise as late fall or early winter 1579/80.

ALTHOUGH MANY SCHOLARS have com- mendedSir Philip Sidneyfor his pleasantexordium concerning the horsemasterJon Pietro Pugliano which opens his dis- tinguishedDefense of Poesie, no one has advanced any reason whySidney chose this particularanecdote to begina carefully constructed and tightly reasoned aesthetic. Innumerable source studies have been unable to uncoverclassical sources or parallels; we generallyassume the incidentto be auto- biographicaland amusing, nothingmore. Yet the autobio- graphicaldimension is not a featureelsewhere in the Defense; it is more properlyviewed as a traditionalmeans of writing an exordium.A furtherhint, however, which sheds light on both Sidney's intentionand method,is supplied by Stephen Gosson'sSchoole of Abuse (1579), the attackon poetry,music, and drama which undoubtedlyprompted Sidney's defense.'

'Thomas Zouch maintained in 1808 that Gosson influencedSidney and in 1868 Arber,in his editionof Sidney's Apologie,flatly stated Sidney's work was "a carefullyprepared answer" to Gosson. Subsequent biog- raphers and editorsof Sidney have in the main agreed, leading William B. Wimsatt,Jr. and Cleanth Brooks to commentin Literary Criticism (New York, 1957) that "Largely from Gosson's dedication and from an allusion to this by Spenser in a letter . . . , but in part also from certain momentsin Sidney's argumentand certain snatches of parodied Euphuistic style which seem echoes of Gosson, Sidney's Defense of Poesie, though writtenperhaps as late as 1585, has been traditionally considereda retortto Gosson" (p. 169). See Zouch, Memoirsof the Life and Writingsof Sir Philip Sidney (York, 1808), p. 197; Edward Arber (London, 1868), p. 7; cf. George E. Woodbury,Studies of a Litterateur

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 PAROD Y

Gossonalso began with an autobiographicalaccount. Further, he assumed in his pamphleta numberof metaphoricalroles as critic,2one of which was that of the soldier who insists men keep up their guard against the subtle evil effectsof much poetry.At one point Gosson writes, "make much of Souldiers,that are redyto executethe same with swords . . . the least discontinuaunceof Martiall exercise give you the foyle" (D8v). Comparethis representativeremark to Sidney's textin whichit is said of Puglianothat

He said souldierswere the noblestestate of mankind, and horsementhe noblest of souldiers.He said they were the maistersof warre, and ornamentsof peace, speedie goers, and strongabiders, triumphers both in Camps and Courts: nay to so unbeleeveda point he preceeded,as that no earthlything bred such wonder to a Prince,as to be a good horseman. . . thenwould he adde certaine praises by telling what a peerlesse beast the horse was, the onely serviceable Courtier withoutflattery, the beast of most bewtie, faithful- nesse, courage,and such more,that if I had not bene a peece of a Logician beforeI came to him,I thinkehe

(New York, 1921), p. 297. See also Mona Wilson, Sir Philip Sidney (London, 1931), p. 156; the biographiesof J. AddingtonSymonds (Lon- don and New York-,1886); H. R. Fox Bourne (New York, 1891), p. 205; E. M. Dankinger, (London, 1932), p. 159; C. Henry Warren (London, 1936), pp. 118-119; AlfredH. Bill (New York, 1937), pp. 194-195; Fred- erick S. Boas (London, 1955), p. 45; Adele Biagi (Napoli, 1958), pp. 131-136; and the editionsof Sidney's Defense, ed. Albert S. Cook (Bos- ton, 1890), pi. xii; Evelyn S. Shuckburgh(Cambridge, 1891), p. xxxiii; G. Gregory Smith (London, 1904), p. 393 et passim; and J. Churton Collins (Oxford,1907), p. xxiii. See also Joel E. Spingarn,A History of Literary Criticismin the Renaissance (New York, 1899), p. 273; George Saintsbury,A History of CriticismII (Edinburgh and London, 1902), 171-176; and Cornell M. Dowlin ,'Sidney's Two Definitionsof Poetry," Modern Language Quarterly, III (1942), 573-581; J. W. H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism: The Renascance (London, 1951), pp. 113- 138. In The Poet's Defence (Cambridge,1939), Jacob Bronowskistudies the respective positions of Gosson and Sidney as a running debate (pp. 19-56). 'Gosson assigns four roles to the critic; besides that discussed here he treats the critic as a host who welcomes his reader to a nourishing argument,a teacher who instructsin virtue and its abuse, and a doctor who attemptsto amputate corruptioncaused by bad poetry.For a full discussion of these roles and the ways Gosson uses them to develop his argument,see my earlier essay, "Stephen Gosson's Art of Argumen- tation in The Schoole of Abuse," Studies in English Literature, VII (1967), 43-54.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 3

would have perswaded me to have wished my selfe a horse.8 Along with a delightfulgeneral satire of the Court,Pugliano is made to burlesqueGosson's words by applyingthem to a horse ratherthan the rider and this mockeryin turn allows Sidney to satirize the credibilityof the foolish readers of Gosson's Schoole of Abuse. Implicationsin Sidney's exordium emerge: Gossonproceeds from scattered observations on Lon- don theatersto a theory"so unbeleeved";his praise and con- demnationare characterizedby extremelanguage; "a peece of a Logician" is able to respondto Gosson's argumentbut, since no one has, the need for a "defense" against Gosson's "attack"is now apparent. Of course this is not instantlyclear, and it may even seem forced.Sidney's Defense is generallysweet, subtle, and comic: a workof good humor.But if we add to this a line of parody on the hypothesisthat the work is throughouta sophisticated responseto Gosson,then the exordiumlogically and stylistic- ally coheres. Further we can trace conscious parallels and burlesque: in Sidney's use of the formof a judicial oration; in the massive array of classical authority(where Sidney frequentlychooses Gosson's authorities and even his sources); in the satire of (and parodyof) euphuism,the stylein which Gossonwrote The Schooleof Abuse. The parallelpresentations, in fact,continue to the pointwhere, in his reprehensio,Sidney answersprecisely those charges which Gosson alone had listed against poetry,and it is part of my purposeto examine some of those parallels here. But I am also interestedin the reason Sidneyused parody: I thinkhe did so because he was in many ways in agreementwith Gosson's position and so could not directlyoppose it. If this hypothesisis true,however, we need

'B1-Blv; I, 150. I have been aided in this study by William Elwood who furnishedme with an IBM printoutof Robert Sidney's ms., the Pon- sonby quarto, and the Olney 1914 edition of the Defense as parallel texts. Quotations are from the Ponsonby quarto as collated with the text in G. Gregory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, I, (Oxford, 1904), 150-207,but these have also been collated with the Olney quarto and the ms. I have chosen Ponsonby for the reasons advanced by Feuillerat in his edition of Sidney's Prose Works, III, (Cambridge, 1912-1926),v-vi, a choicesupported by William Ringler who, in reading both quartos against the Penshurst ms. recently discovered,tells me that the Olney is a later text with sophisticatedinterpolations in all likelihoodnot in Sidney's originaltext.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 PARODY to redate Sidney's Defense to the winter of 1580, while the object of the parody was still fresh in his readers' minds. I shall conclude,therefore, with some additionalevidence sug- gesting a date of compositionfor the Defense considerably earlier than the one we have been persuadedto give it.

Stephen Gosson's Schoole of Abuse was entered in the Stationer'sRegister on 22 July1579; the pamphletwas dedicated to "the right noble Gentleman,Master Philip Sidney Esquier." On 5 and 16 October,1579, in a letterto Gabriel Harvey dated from Leicester House, the London home of Sidney's uncle,Edmund Spenser wrote "Newe Books I heare of none,but onlyof one, that writinga certaineBooke, called The School of Abuse, and dedicatingit to Maister Sidney, was for hys labor scorned: if at least it be in the goodnesse of that nature to scorne. Suche follie is it, not to regard aforehandethe inclinationand qualitie of him,to whomewee dedicate oure Bookes."4Yet the book Sidney "scorned" was notas offensiveas we have thought. BrieflyGosson argues that good art instructsmen in virtue by presentingmodels of virtuousaction (C6v-C7) while poor art corruptsman by suggestingsuch evil tendenciesas im- moderation(B7ff.) Art is always enjoyablebecause it appeals to the emotions.But this is dangerous: "Poets, eytherwith fables to shew theyrabuses, or with plaine tearmesto unfold theyr mischiefe, . . . disperse their poyson through all the worlde" (Alv).5 Poetry in alluring men as it does (A2) awakenspleasure and subjects reason. Thus it corruptsman's special nature (D2): "Man is enrichedwith reason and knowledge: with knowledgeto serve his maker and governehim-

'Two Other,very commendableLetters, printed with Three Proper, and wittie,familiar Letters (1580), fol. G3v. In Stephen Gosson: A Bio- graphical and Critical Study (Princeton, 1942, rpt. New York, 1971), William Ringler has justified the dedication: "The kind of book that Sidney's contemporariesin general thoughtwould attract him can be seen in the three works that had been dedicated to him before the Schoole of Abuse [three moral treatises, one an edition of the New Testament in Greek]. It is obvious that anyone who knew Sidney only by reputationin 1579 had every reason to expect that he would find a work like the Schoole of Abuse highly acceptable" (pp. 36-37). 'Quotations are from the second edition (1579b) of Gosson's Schoole of Abuse.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 5 selfe; withreason to distinguishgood and il" (Dlv). Without reason men turn into beasts. When reason is subjected to passion,man's actionsbecome immoderate (C6) and immoral (Clff.) Just as there is a right use of all arts so there is a rightuse of poetry(A7v). But untilthat use of teachingvir- tue is restoredit is best for men (D3-D3v) and women (F4) to remainat home,avoiding temptation. Gosson's pamphletis correctiveand educative; he offersin appended letterstwo recommendations:until plays specificallybegin to teach virtue the Lord Mayor shouldrefuse all letterspatent (E8) and women especially should refrain from playhouses (F2). Thus Gosson argues that poetry (by which he means all art) is by naturegood; it is evil when it is abused (literally, wronglyused) or made unnaturalas judged by the ends to whichit is put or the ends which somehowresult.6

And as some of the Players are farre fromabuse: so are some of their Playes are withoutrebuke: which are as easilyremembered as quicklyreckoned. The twoo prose Bookes plaied at the Belsavage, where you shall findenever a woordewithout wit, never a line without pith, never a letter placed in vaine. The Jew and Ptolome,showne at the Bull, the one representingthe greedinesseof worldlychusers, and bloodymindes of Usurers: The othervery lively discrybinghowe sedi- tious estates, with their owne devises, false friendes, with their owne swoordes,and rebelliouscommons in their owne snares are overthrowne: neither with Amorousgesture wounding the eye: nor with slovenly talkehurting the eares of thechast hearers. (C6v) He concludes by insisting that he would not banish art (D3-D3v). Gossonlists five ways in whichpoetry is abused. (a) Poetry is frivolous;when it does notteach virtuebut entertainsonly, it serves no functionin the commonwealthand is therefore useless (Alv). (b) Poets are liars, and seduce their readers to believein falsehoodswhich deliberatelyteach evil through (c) arousing emotionand demotingreason (A2). (d) The wronguse of poetrythreatens good governmentby appealing especially to youth (A6). (e) Poetry and drama likewise when abused endanger social and economiclife since they

"Cf. Bronowski,pp. 33-34.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 PARODY encourageparticipation in frivolityand detractmen, especially apprentices,from jobs (C8v). In the face of such abuses Gosson'sown reactionis cautious. He favorstradition: men should "walk in the pathes of their predecessors" (Blv). He urges moderation: "He that holds not him self contentedwith the lightof the Sun but liftesup his eyes to measurethe bignesse,is made blinde" (E4v). His reasoning is groundedin such assumptionsas a corporate polity,the chain of being,and the ideal standardsof art and conductpracticed by the men of ancient Greece and Rome. Because he holds to virtuein poetryand the ultimatelygood natureof well-meaningmen, he defendsthe rightuse of art; his pamphletteaches what is wrong,serves as a "schoole of abuse." That abuse can be correctedhe makes clear with a medicalmetaphor:

A good Phisitionwhen the disease cannotbee cured within,thrusteth the corruption out in the face, and deliverethhis Patient to the Chirurgion:Though my skill in Phisickebee small,I have some experience in these maladyes,which I thrustout with my penne too everymans views,yeelding the ranke flesheto the Chirurgionsknife, and so riddemy handes of the cure, for it passeth my cunning too heale them privily. (15) Recalling Sidney's Defense we can see that he and Gosson agree at severalpoints. For bothmen (1) poetryis functional as it is educative;its rightend is to teach virtue (thoughfor Sidney it must also move men into action); (2) poetryhelps man keep his humanity(for Gosson, poetry allows man to fulfill his responsibilityon a secular chain of being; for Sidney poetryis divinelyinspired and makes man aware of himselfand God); (3) historyilluminates the discrepancy betweenwhat man has been and what he is; what poetrywas (and shouldbe) and its currentstate of abuse. Sidney,scorn- ing Gosson's presumptuousplea for patronage and perhaps annoyedby his frequenthyperbole and crude generalizations, the simplicityof his argument,may also have realized that at manyjunctures they held commonconsent. Unable, therefore, to attackGosson directly he proceededto laugh Gosson'sener- getic attack out of court. He proceededto respond (as both gentlemanand critic) throughparody and burlesque.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 7

Some years ago Kenneth Orne Myrick demonstrated conclusively that Sidney's Defense is organized as a classical judicial oration; in arranging his argument by exordium,narratio, propositio,partitio, confirmatio, reprehensio,and peroratioSidney only paralleled the formof argument which Gosson had used." Several passages scattered throughoutSidney's Defense corroboratethe notion that he conceivesof his argumentas a specificanswer (cf. F3, F4; p. 181). Sidneynever names his opponents-thiswould be out of keepingwith the art of insinuationand parody that marks his response-but in repeated allusion to Gosson-through turningGosson's phrasingon him, by turningGosson's own authoritiesagainst him, by burlesquingand even criticizing the euphuisticstyle in which Gosson writes-his target is clear enoughto that courtlycircle among whomhe circulated his manuscript.Since it would be too tedious to cite all the parallel and parodyingpassages throughoutthe Defense, let us concentrateon the briefestsection, the exordium,as a representativeexample of the way in whichSidney replies to Gosson. Followingthe reference to Puglianowhich opens the Defense of Poesie, Sidneywrites, But thus much at least, with his no few words he drave into me, that selfeloveis betterthan any guild- ing, to make that seem gorgious wherin our selves be parties. (Blv; p. 150) Gossonhad written

Now if any man aske me why my selfe have penned Comedyesin timepaste, and inveighso egerlyagainst them here, let him knowe that Semel insanivimus omnes: I have sinned, and am sorry for my fault: . . . I gave my self to that exercise in hope to thrive but I burntone candle to seek another,and lost bothe mytime and mytravell, when I had doone. (C7v) Afterwittesare ever best, burnt Childrendread the fire,I have seene that which you behold,and I shun

'Myrick,Sir Philip Sidney as a Literary Craftsman (Cambridge,Mass., 1935), pp. 46-83; Kinney,pp. 45-46.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 PARODY

that whichyou frequent.And that I mightthe easier pull yourmindes from such studyes,drawe your feete fromsuch places; I have sente you a Schoole of those abuses, which I have gatheredby observation. (II6v-II7)

A few lines later Sidney uses the same metaphoricalrole as Gosson had: "beare with me, since the scholler is to be pardonedthat followeththe steps of his maister" (Blv; p. 151). As Gosson had written of poets that nurse abuses, so Sidney,in defendingthem, writes that poetry"hath bene the firstlight giver to ignorance,and firstnurse whose milke litle and litle enabled them to feed afterwardsof tougher knowledges"(B2; p. 151), combiningGosson's two metaphors. Myrick(p. 60) has commendedCook's note (p. 61) in which he points out that Sidney's subsequentanimal allusionsmock Gosson'suse of animals. Sidneycontinues the exordium,"And will you play the Hedge-hogge,that being received into the den,drave out his host? Or ratherthe Vipers,that with their birth kill their parents?" (B2; p. 151) Cook is thinkingof suchpassages in Gossonas this:

Fencing is growneto such abuse, that I may wel com- pare the Scholars of this Schooleto themthat provide Staves for their owne shoulders; that foster Snakes, in their owne bosoms; that trust Wolves, to garde theyrSheepe; And to the men of Hyrcania,that keepe Mastiffes,to woorryethem selves. (D6) Cook also notes (p. 61) the similarityof Sidney's second phrase and Gosson's own "The Adders death, is her own broode" (D5v). Next Sidneylinks Gosson's centralmetaphor to a virtueof poetry. Nay let any Historie bee brought,that can say any writerswere therebefore them, if theywere not men of the same skill, as Orpheus,Linus, and some other are named,who having bene the firstof that country that made pennes deliverersof theirknowledge to the posteritie,[m]ay justly challengeto bee called their Fathers in learning.For not onely in time they had this prioritie,(although in it selfeantiquitie be vener- able) but went beforethem, as causes to draw with their charmingsweetnesse the wild untamedwits to an admirationof knowledge. (B2; p. 151)

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 9

Sidney is parodyingGosson's remark,quoting Cicero, that certain"Fathers in learning"had become"the fathersof lyes" (A3); Gosson's othercitations from the ancientswere from Plato and the second-centuryNeoplatonist Maximus Tyrius (A4-A4v). Justtwo pages beforethis, Gosson had writtenof Ennius (A3) whomSidney now turnsto his own supportalong with Gower and Chaucer (B2; p. 152); he goes on to turn other of Gosson's authorities-Pythagoras, Plato-against him while continuingto parody his language. Sidney remarks that "this did so notablyshew it self,that the Philosophersof Greece durst not a long time apear to the world,but under the mask of poets" (B2; p. 152), echoing Gosson's earlier observationthat if " [you] pul offthe visard that Poets maske in, you shall disclosetheir reproch" (A2v). Even moretelling is the way in which Sidney's adumbrationof the basis for his defense, And truly even Plato whoso ever well considereth, shall finde that in the body of his worke thoughthe inside and strengthwere Philosophie,the skin as it were and beautie, dependedmost of Poetrie . . . besides his Poeticalldescribing the circumstancesof their meetings,as the well orderingof a banquet,the deli- cacie of a walke, with enterlacingmeere Tales, as GygesRing and others,which, who knowesnot to bee flowers of Poetrie, did never walke into Appollos Garden . . . (B2v; p. 152) makes its own ironic commenton Gosson's observationthat

The foole that comes into a fayre Garden, likes the beawtie of flowers,and stickesthem in his Cap: the Phisition considereththeir nature, and puttes them in the potte: in the one theywither without profite; in the otherthey serve to the healthof the bodie: He that readethgood writers,and pickesout theirflowers for his owne nose, is lykea foole; hee that preferreth theirvertue before their sweet smel is a good Phisition. (E2v) Conversely,Gosson's premise that "Poets are the whet- stones of wit" (A2) suffersthe same reversal from Sidney who commentsnext that poets are "lawgiving Divines . . . held in a devoutreverence" (B3; p. 153); as for the barbar- ous, Sidney argues, "if ever learning come among them,it

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 PARODY mustbe by having theirhard dull wittessoftened and sharp- ened withthe sweetedelights of Poetrie,for untillthey finde a pleasure in the exercise of the minde, great promises of much knowledge,wil littlepersuade themthat know not the frutes of knowledge" (B3; p. 153). Thus in both his own premiseand in Gosson's Sidneyis able to burlesquelanguage and subtilelysatirize The Schooleof Abuse. Sidney next acknowledgesthe early Welsh bards whose lessons alone still survivethe Roman and Norman conquests (B3-B3v; pp. 153-154) and illustratesthe wisdomand virtue of the early writersby turningto an etymologicaldefinition of Poet in supportof poetry.But Gosson too had noted the positionwhich poets held among the ancients; in one place, he remarks, They whome Caesar upheld, were driven out by Octavian: whom Caligula reclaimed,were cast of by Nero: whom Nervd exalted, were thrownedown by Trajan; whom Anthony admitted, were expelled againe, pestredin Gallies and sent into Hellespontby by Marcus Aurelius. But when the whole rabble of Poets, Pipers, Players,Jugglers, Jesters, and dauncers were receivedagaine, Rome was reportedto bee fuller of foolesthen of wise men. (B7) Sidney continueshis praise of the Roman Vates, "a diviner, foreseer,or Prophet,"with an example. As of A lbinusthe Governourof our Iland, who in his childhoodmet with this verse Arma amens capio, nec sat rationis in armis: and in his age performedit, althoughit were a verie vaine and godlesse supersti- tion,as also it was, to thinkespirits were commaunded by such verses,whereupon this word Charmesderived of Carmina,cometh: so yetserveth it to shew the great reverence those wittes were held in.... (B3v; p. 154) Sidney's objectivityis transformedto apparent agreement withGosson concerning the "verie vaine and godlessesupersti- tion,"but this is in turncountered by a secondshift to account- ing for the "great reverence"by "wittes" whichturns on the implicationsof "Charmes." Sidney thus uses Gosson's argument against him, and this tactic is more sharply realized whenwe recallthat he has Albinusquote a phrasefrom Cicero which Gosson had labelled "a vain brag and a false allarme" (D8).

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 11

What is at issue here is more than rhetoricand parody, however.Sidney is unwillingto admit an abuse of poetryby classical writersnor the inherentdangers in a poetrywhich portraysboth good and evil. On these points Gosson is clear: Sappho was skilfullin Poetrie and sung wel, but she was whorish.I set not this downe too condemnethe giftesof versifying,daunsing, or singyngin women, so theybee used withmeane, and exercisein due time. But to shew you that as by Anacharsis report the Scythians did it without offence: so one Swalowe bringesnot Sommer;nor one particularexample suffi- cientproofe for a generallprecept. (AS) Gosson insists poetry is a two-edgedsword that could en- courageboth virtue and vice. He proposesexamples to follow among classical writersfor the fallen state of poetrymay yet be redeemed.But he proposes no particular safeguards against the evil effectsof poetry.Neither does Sidney. Con- frontedwith the real possibilityof abuse Sidney turns his discussionto the ideal basis of poetryin the Idea or Platonic form which moves the poet to write. Sidney provides two routes for the poet: to create men of perfectionand virtue who as part of the goldenworld act as correctivemodels for our brazen world, or to create for instructionand delight those creatures never seen-demigods, cyclops, chimeras, furies (B4v-C1; pp. 155-156). Sidney asks that otherworldly images serve worldlyends. When this positionfalters in the analysis of currentabuses, Sidney's parody also falters and he turnsinstead to an extendeddigression (H2ff.; p. 191ff.). I thinkwe are here at a basic cause for Sidney's parody: at heartthe issue he takes with Gosson is more one of emphasis than one of substance.Parody effectuallyhides that recogni- tion.

III

How minimalthe differencesare whichare cloakedin Sid- ney's parodyare made evidentin Sidney's reprehensio.Here he lists exactlythose charges which Gosson had levied: First, that there beeing manie other more fruteful knowledges,a man might better spend his time in them,then in this. Secondly,that it is the motherof lyes. Thirdly,that it is the nurse of abuse, infecting

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 PAROD Y

us with many pestilentdesires, with a Sirens sweet- nesse, drawingthe mindeto the Serpentstaile of sin- full fansies; and herein especiallyComedies give the largest field to eare, as Chawcer saith, how both in othernations and in ours, beforePoets did softenus, we were fullof couragegiven to martialexercises, the pillers of manlikelibertie, and not lulled to sleepe in shadie idlenes, with Poets pastimes. And lastly and chiefly,they cry out with open mouthas if theyhad overshotRobinhood, that Plato banished them out of his Commonwealth.Truly this is much, if there be muchtruth in it. (F4-F4v; pp. 183-184) In respondingto thesebasic pointsof the controversy,Sidney's argumentgrows remarkablythin. First Sidney takes issue with a point Gosson reiterates, that poets often deal with the sensuous image (Alv-A2). Sidney's reply is not so much counterargumentas counter- statement,an insistentassertion of his own:

If it be, as I affirme,that no learningis so good, as that which teachethand movethto vertue,and that none can both teach and move thereto so much as Poesie, thenis the conclusionmanifest; that inckeand paper cannotbe to a moreprofitable purpose imployed. And certainlythough a man should graunttheir first assumption,it should follow (mee thinks) very un- willingly,that good is not good,because betteris better. But I still and utterlydeny, that there is sprung out of eartha morefruitfull knowledge. (F4v; p. 184) Gosson had requiredsome guarantee-or at the very least a sign-of virtuouspoetry; his own test was that of ends. In Gosson's terms,Sidney offersno defense. Bronowskihas demonstratedthat Sidney likewise refuses to meetGosson's second issue.

Gosson does not say [poetryis 'the motherof Iyes.'] He does call poets 'fathersof lyes'. He says how they lie,and to whatend. Many good sentencesare spoken by Davus, to shadowe his knavery: and writtenby Poets, as ornamentesto beautifyetheir woorkes, and sette theyrtrumperie too sale withoutsuspect. Pul off the visard that Poets maske in, you shall disclosetheir reproch, bewray their vanities, loth their wantonnesse,lament their follie, and

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 13

perceive their sharpe sayings to be placed as Pearles in Dunghils, fresh pictures on rotten walles, chasteMatrons apparel on commonCurte- sans. These are the Cuppes of Circes,that turne reasonableCreatures into brute Beastes. WhenSidney comes to answerthe chargethat poetry 'is the motherof lyes',he reads it quite unlikethis. He reads it as a charge that the storiestold by poets are lies; and answers easily that they are not lies but fables.Gosson had not said thatpoets tell lyingstories. He had said how poets lie, and why. Sidney's sleight of hand with the happy phrase, 'the motherof lyes', does notanswer his charge.8 Sidneyfinds further difficulty: on the one hand he supports an aestheticdistance (GI; p.184) and on the other asks his reader to emulate what he reads, for the end of poetryis well-doing,not well-knowingonly. Bronowski points out (p. 43) that if the ideal is made real it is no longer ideal; if the poetic Idea is acted out in a brazen world,it is no longer Idea. We now see the necessityof poetryas part history(the cloak of fact) and part philosophy (the basis in Idea): perhaps we are at the genesis of Sidney's response. Still we findno answerto Gosson'sobjection. On the third issue Sidney retreats once more to parody. Perhaps he does so because his openingremarks come danger- ously close to the position Gosson holds; Sidney writes,

For I will not denie, but that mans wit may make Poesie, which should be etXacrOTLX7[figurative] which somelearned have definedfiguring foorth good things to be jpavra-rttX[fantastic] which doth contrariwise infect the fancle with unwoorthieobjects, as the Painter should give to the eye either some excellent perspective,or some fine Picture fit for buildingor fortification, or . . . please an ill pleased eye with wanton shewes of beter hidden matters. (G2; pp. 186-187) Sidney succeeds this with outrightsatire, commentingon Gosson's praise of old classical disciplinebefore poetry (B8- B8v) as a timewhen "I thinkscarcely Spinx can tell" (G2v; 187-188). Gosson appeals to Aristotle (D2) as the source of natural historywhich illustratesa necessityfor caution. Sidney parodies Aristotle by citing Alexander's choice of

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 PARODY

Homer (whom Gosson had parodied on A3) over Aristotle (Sidney, G3v; p. 189). Sidney likewiseturns Gosson's other authorities,Achilles (Gosson, B8; Sidney,G3v; p. 189) and Ennius (Gosson, A3; Sidney,G3v; p. 189), on him. Sidneyadmits the fourthissue gives him considerablediffi- culty. His response is again counterattack,this time allud- ing to Gosson'spamphlet.

First trulya man mightmaliciously object, that Plato being a Philosopher,was a naturall enemyof Poets. For indeedeafter the Philosophershad picked out of the sweete misteriesof Poetrie, the right discerning true points of knowledge:they foorthwithputting it in methode,and makinga Schoole Art of that which the Poets did onely teach by a divine delightfulnes, beginningto spurne at their guides, like ungratefull Prentices,were not contentto set up shop for themselves, but sought by all meanes to discredit their maisters,which by the force of delightbeing barred them,the lesse they could overthrowthem, the more theyhated them. (G4; p. 190) Sidney's counterassertionlapses into what now seems sophis- tic. "And a man need go no furtherthan to Plato himselfeto knowe his meaning: who in his Dialogue called Ion, giveth high, and rightly,divine commendationunto Poetrie. So as Plato banishingthe abuse, not the thing, not banishing it, but giving due honourto it, shall be our Patron,and not our adversarie" (H1; p. 192). Gosson had referredto Plato's actionconcerning poets in the Republic,not the Ion (an early work) and in refusingto confrontPlato's opinion in the later dialogue, Sidney manipulatesGosson's attack,but does notmeet it directly. Indeed, what develops now in Sidney's Defense seems a curious and unexpectedthing unless we have come to anticipate the patternof parodywhen argumentfails. Sidneyturns fromthe substantialmatter of defendingthe act of poetryto examining its art and he spends considerabletime on the high rhetoricof euphuism,the styleGosson had employedin The Schoole of Abuse. Sidneycomments, "Now for the outside of it, which is words,or (as I may tearme it) Diction,it is evenwell worse: so is it thathony-flowing Matrone Eloquence, apparrelled,or rather disguised,in a Courtisanlikepainted affection" (13; pp. 201-202). The remark is telling, since

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 15

Gossonhad argued early (Alv-A2) that poetryattracted men to evil becauseof its pleasingsurfaces. To be clear,however, Sidney spells out the techniquesfound in Gosson.

Now for similitudesin certain Printed discourses,I thinkeall Herberists,all storiesof beasts, foules,and fishes, are rifled up, that may come in multitudes to wait upon any of our conceits,which certainlyis as absurd a surfetto the eares as is possible.For the force of a similitudenot being to prove any thing to a contrarydisputer, but onelyto explaineto a will- ing hearer,when that is done,the rest is a mostetedi- ous pratling. . . . (I3v-I4; pp. 202-203) The use of analogies drawn especiallyfrom Pliny's unnatural historywas one of Gosson's chiefmethods of persuasion.We mightfurther anticipate a detailedstylistic parody of Gosson at thispoint, and we are not disappointed.

Undoubtedly(at least to my opinion undoubtedly)I have foundin divers smal learned Courtiers,a more sound stile, then in some professorsof learning,of whichI can gesse no othercause, but that the Courtier followingthat which by practise he findethfittest to nature,therein (though he knowit not) dothaccording to art, thoghnot by art: wherethe otherusing art to shew art and not hide art (as in these cases he shuld do) fliethfrom nature,and indeed abuseth art. (I4; p. 203) This passage mayin factcontain a veiledreference, for Sidney concludes in part, "But what? me thinks,I deserve to be poundedfor strayingfrom Poetrie, to Oratory:but bothhave such an affinitiein the wordish consideration,that I think this digressionwill makemy meaning receive the fullerunder- standing . . ." (I4-I4v; p. 203).

The foregoingevidence demonstratesthat Gosson helped to instigateSidney's Defense and that,further, he was instru- mental in determiningits form (the classical oration), its issues (listed in the reprehensio),and its authoritiesand illustrationsas well as styleas mirroredin Sidney's parody. I have argued that this was because Sidney disagreed with

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 PARODY

Gosson's apparent position against all poetry and the simplicityand crudity(despite the euphuism) of his work. But I have argued furtherthat Sidney resortedto parody to dis- guise the fact that his disagreementwith Gosson was not a substantialone. We can test this premiseby comparingSidney's statements in his fourfoldpropositio with respectivestatements by Gos- son in The Schoole of Abuse. Sidney argues first that poets create a golden world througherected wit to respondto and counterthe brazen world of the infectedwill (Clv; p. 157); and this is ultimatelycongruent with Gosson's positionthat virtuouspoetry is the best teacher. With his second issue takenfrom Aristotle-that poetry is theart of imitation(Clv; p. 158) -Sidney is on thinnerground. All rests on the inten- tion of the poet and the object created,as Gossonhad pointed out (A2; B6-B6v). Sidney does not respondto this problem. Sidney's third issue is his best "defense": "For these third be theywhich most properlydo imitateto teach and delight: and to imitate,borrow nothing of what is, hath bin, or shall be, but range onely reined with learned discretion,into the divine considerationof what may be and should be" (C2v; p. 159). Gosson is of too literal a turn of mind to address himselfto suchan issue. Perhaps with Gosson in mind Sidney acknowledgesthat "I speake of the Art and not of the Artificer"(D4; p. 169). With that final point-that art alone moves men (Elff.; p. 170ff.)-he and Gosson agree although Sidney fails to dis- tinguishGosson's crucial point, that art may move men to good or evil. When an angel and devil appear on stage, who is to say whichis moreappealing to the playgoer?Ultimately, Sidney begs this question (possibly by assuming a greater inherentgoodness in man). All in all, the Defenseread in light of Gosson's "attack" is neither convincingnor especially satisfying. I have furtherargued that along with a lack of substantive differences(save for Sidney's theoreticaldiscussion of the imagination) both Gosson and Sidney share a number of convictions.We are now in a positionto determinemore of thesecommonly held attitudes: (1) Art mirrors man's behavior and motivates him to betteractions. Gosson writes, " [Withplays] are the abuses of

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 17 the worlde revealed,every man in a play may see his owne faultes,and learne by this glasse, to amende his manners" (B5); Sidney notes, "Poetrie ever sets vertue so out in her best cullours,making fortuneher well-waytinghandmayd, that one mustsneeds be enamouredof her" (D4v; p. 170). (2) Good art must appeal ultimatelyto man's soul. Thus Gosson: "[A]re not they accursed thinkeyou by the mouth of God, whichhaving the governmentof youngPrinces, with Poetical fantasies draw them to the schooles of their owne abuses" (A6) and Sidney:

This purifyingof wit, this enrichingof memorie,en- abling of judgement,and enlargingof conceitwhich commonlywe cal learning,under what name so ever it come forth [and poetryis here Sidney's concern],or to what immediateend soever it be directed,the finall end is, to lead and draw us to as high a perfection,as our degenerate soules made worse by their clay- lodgings,can be capable of. (C3; p. 160) (3) The end of art is not well-knowingbut well-doing. Here is Gosson:

If it be the dutie of everyman in a commonwealth, one way or otherto bestirrehis stumpes,I cannotbut blame thoselither contemplators very much, which sit concludingof Sillogismesin a corner,which in a close study in the Universitycoope themselvesup fortie yerestogither studying all thinges,and professenoth- ing. . . . To continue so long without moving, ... what differethit from a dumbe Picture, or a deade body? (E2-E2v) Here is Sidney:

But when by the ballance of experienceit was found, that the Astronomerlooking to the stars mightfall in a ditch,that the inquiringPhilosopher might be blind in him self,and the Mathematician,might draw forth a straightline witha crookedhart. Then so did proofe, the overrulerof opinionsmake manifest,that all these are but servingsciences; whichas theyhave a private end in themselves,so yet are they all directedto the highestend of the mistresseknowledge by the Greeks whichstands as I thinke,in the knowledgeof a mans selfe,in the Ethike and Politique consideration,with the end of well doing,and not of well knowingonely. (C3v; p. 161)

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 PARODY

From opposing routes and throughthe opposing styles of directnessand parody,both Gosson and Sidney come to the same restingplace: bothwish to defendand makeimpregnable the possibilitiesinherent in good art rightlyused.

There remainsthe matterof dating Sidney'sDefense. Cook (pp. xii-xiii) dated the essay 1583, after Sidney's trip to Flanders in the early spring of 1582 for which he had put aside his early work on the Arcadia accomplishedin 1581. Cook's argumentlike Fox Bourne's (p. 407) is a stylisticone; since the prose romanceis highlyelaborate and artificialin its diction,as the serious passages in the Defense are not, Cook infersthat the criticaltreatise comes froma later and more mature period. But Cook wishes to advocate 1583 for another reason-in that year Sidney met Giordano Bruno, the poet and mysticwho, Cook is certain,influenced some of thetheory in theDefense. It has long been accepted that much of Sidney's platonic thoughtin the Defense was a part of the intellectualcurrent of the late sixteenthcentury in England and that there is no substantialneed nor proofthat Bruno played any decisive role. Indeed,I have suggestedthat Sidneywas highlyeclectic even in style (fromserious theoryto satire to parody); and this would suggesta youngwriter, fresh from the university wherestudents were accustomedto the formof a disputation composed of a patchworkof other men's statementsand tonesoften roughly stitched together.9 There is considerabletextual evidencethat Sidney made a numberof major and minor referencesto Gosson's Schoole of Abuse publishedin the summerof 1579 and read by Sidney, at Spenser'sword, by the fall of that year. The large number of passages in the Defense-of which I have cited perhaps ten per cent-which parody Gosson, at times rather closely,

'Bronowski,pp. 21-22. Sidney had written,"Now for the Poet, he nothing affirmeth,and thereforenever lieth: for as I take it, to lie, is to affirmethat to be true,which is false" (Gl; p. 184). 'I should note that Sidney responds only to the issues Gosson raised in his Schoole of Abuse and not to the additionalissues Gosson raises later in Playes Confutedin Fiuc Actions (1582)-an additional reason for the earlier dating of the Defense.

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARTHUR F. KINNEY 19 suggeststhat Sidneyhad a copy of Gosson's pamphletbeside him while he composedhis sophisticatedand subtle reply. If so, Sidneyprobably composed his workshortly after publi- cationof The Schoole of Abuse. Conversely,no man like Sid- ney would have felt it necessaryat a later date to go to the troubleof answeringGosson since a numberof otherwriters had alreadytaken up that task.10Indeed, at a muchlater date the referencesfor Sidney'sparody would be lost, their influ- ence no longer so keenlyfelt. With the evidencenow before us linkingthe two texts,therefore, it seems reasonableto con- jecturethat Sidneywrote the Defenseduring late fall or early winter1579/1580.1"

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST

?oSuchas Thomas Lodge in [Honest Excuses], also the fall of 1579. "Another piece of corroborationis Sidney's letter to his brotherRobert (Letter XXXVIII in Feuillerat's edition, III, 124-127), in which he cites Homer as exemplaryin teaching lessons of conductand notes the importanceof the teacher (pp. 126, 127).

This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:48:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions