wt Studies i?z the EngZish 7Qmaissance

Tlic foriiint and cnumccativc standards of ELR “Reant Studies” surveys are generally consistnit with thosc used in tlie foctliconhg Recctll Studies in English Renaissance Drm, cd. Tcrencc P. Logan and Denzell S. Smith (VniVerSity of Nebraska Press). Scholarship is organizcd by authors or titles of anonymous works. Items included represmt the combined entries listed in the annual bibliographies published by PAULA, SP, YWES, and MHU from 1945 tlicough, in tlic presait instance. 196% supplemented by a selective list of general studies aid additional annual bibliographies. This material, at the discretion of the individd contributor, has bcen either indudcd in the prosc commentary or listed in the See Clko sections. Thc series is intcndcd to conibine a topical review of research with a reasonably coinplctc bibliography.

ELR bibliognphical arrides will expand the Nebraska series to indude nondramatic authors and, when appropriate. bring the dramatic surveys up to date. Preliminary mumera- tivc bibliography and editorial work are done at the RenaiSance English Bibliography Center, University of New Hampshire. Journal title abbreviations used are &om thc Directory of Joinrials and series it: the Hirmmities. cornpilad by H;lrrison T. Meserole and Carolyn James Bishop (New York, IgF).-Terence P. wan, Director; Renaissance Eng- lidi Bibliography Center; University of New Hampshire. Durham

RECENT STUDIES IN SIDNEY

WILLIAM L. G O D S H A L K

. . -

HE standard complete edition of Sidney’s works is Albert Federat’s Com- plete Works ofSir Philip Sidney, 4 V O ~ . (1912-26). This was reissued with most of the poetry excised, as The Prose Works ofsir Philip Sidney (1962). The stan- T dard edition of the poetry is W h A. Ringler Jr.’s The Poems ofsir Philip

Sidtiey (1962). Mrs. John Brondey (Jean Robertson) is editing the Old Arcudiu.

I. GENERAL

A. Biogruphicul. Malcolm William Wallace’s The Life ofsir Philip Sidney (1915) has not been completely superseded as the standard life. MOM Wilson’s Sir Philip Sidney (1932) is still useful. Roger Howell’s Sir Philip Sidney: The Shepherd Knight (1968) places Sidney firndy in his historical context. Howell sees Sidney as a symbol of the policies of Leicester and Walsingharn, concentrates on Sidney the poltician, and maintains: “It is not the place

William L. Godshalk 149 of a biographer to attempt a litervy analysis of Sidney’s poetry.” John Buxton’s Sir Philip Sidney and the English Renaissance (1954; znd cb 1964) is a literary biography and ind& an account of Sidney’s travels on the Continent and the literary and scholarly &en& hc made there. For a correction of a detail in Buxton’s work, sae my “Gabrid Harvey a d Sidney’s h d i a . ” MLR. I.IX (IW). 497-99. Harvey was not preparing the A r d i a for the press in the early xventeenth century. Frederick S. Boas, Sir Philip Sidney: Representative Elizabethan: His L.II mrd Writings

(1955). gives a good introduction to Sidney‘s life and works. After an account of Sidney’s early Mi Boas devotes the cdld chapters to a description of the works &om The Lady of Mhy. through the Arcadiq to the tramhion of the Trewnes ofthe Chtiscian Religion. The ~ ~ p t e r s t n c e S i d n e y ’ s e n ~ ~ i n t h e L o w C o ~ ~ a n d h i s d t a t t L J . ~ v a n D o r - sten’s PMB, Patrons, and P r ~ ~ m s : Sir Philip Sidney, Daniel Rogas. and tke Leidn Hutnun* (1962) surveys Sidney’s COnneQion with the Dutch poets; the (105S-f .-’- teusive. Van Donten, “Grutcrus and Sidney’s Arrodicr,” RES, XVI (INS), 174-n. notcs that au epigram by G n v a u ~ suggests theDutch poet read the&& Moreit was primal in Isgo*

nomces the discovery of sevmty-six h e r s formerly unknowa ThcK have becn incor- p o d in a biography, Young Philip Sulnq, scheduled for April IWZ by thc Yale Uni- versity Press. Osborn, in “Mica mica parva stella: S i s Horoscope,” TU, I Jan- 1971.17-18, points out that the horoscope, cast when Sidney was sixteen. records some importaut events in Sidney’s life until that time; John M. Addcy, 7ZS, 15 Jplavy IW, 6g. comments negatively on Osbom’s conclusions. Jean Robertson’s “Sir Ph%p Sidney and Lady Penelope Rich,” RES, xv (1964), 2-7, discusses Bent Jucl-Jamn’s acq& tion of an unexpurgated manusaipt of George Gifford‘s “The Mvlna of Sir Philip Sid- ney’s D& Gifford was at Sidney’s side during his last days when Sidney confessed that the one “Vanide” which he had ban unable to exorcise was “my Ladie Rich” In “Sidney and Bandello,” Library, XXI (1966). 326-28, Robertson dcsaibes Siey’s copy of the French (Boaistuau-Bdeforest) nansLfion of Bandello. The copy was fkst nodcod by D. L. Edwards, A History ofthe King’s School, Canterbury (1957). In “A S i e y Autograph,” BC, xm (1964). 65, I report the discovery of Sidney’s copy of Guicciardini’s Lo Historia D’ltalia which contains the manuscript inscription: “Philippo Sidneio. Patauij. 20. Jmij 1574.” The best study of Sidney’s reputation is the unpublished doctoral dissatation by William H e ~ y Bond, “The Reputation and Influence of Sir Philip Sidney,”~ vols. (Har- Vard 1941)-

B. General Critical Studies. Most general critical studies of Sidney specifically treat his poetry. Theodore Spencer, in “The Poetry of Sir Philip Sidney,” ELH, (Ig4S), 251- 78, suggests that English poetry needed the experiments of Sidney and his group and dis- cusses Sidney’s experiments with English, classical, and Italian forms. Robert L. Mont- gomery Jr.. Symmetry andSmce (IMI), explores Sidney’s mixed style which contains both the ornate and the plain. The “pattern of Sidney’s talent. - . is not so much one of transi- don from one style to another as it is an adjustment of different styles to diffaent PU- poses. even within the same poem or group of poems.” This complex study defies brief description. The final chapter, on Arhophif and Stella, deals with the conflict of passion and reason in the sonnets. David Kaktone. Sidney’s Poetry: Contexts and lrlterpretntiorls (1965),

- was ex-

James M. Osborn, “New Light on Sir Philip Sidney," TLS, 30 April ~ g p , 487,

150 lh,qiisli Litcrnry Hcrrnissnncc clincllecn tlic Arcarliaii poctry niid Asfrophi/ atid Skda. Kalstoiic cmphaskes the I t a h back- Rroiiiid (Sntiiinznro nnd I’ctrnrcli) niid poiiiu out tlic basic cofict between “love and hcrolc ohligatiwi, lx-twccii dairc niid virtuous nffktion.” At a time when most critics (ICC I t , A) nrc ciiiplinniziiig tlic relcvnticc of tlic Arcndiaii cclogues as a commentary on the iiiaiii nctioir of Armdin, Knlstotic rliggatt that tlicy stop the action of the romatlce, and “tlic rcadcr is sudricnly trnssportcd into that tiinclrvs world in which sports, dancing, and Ixwtic Iwrfcrriiiniicc nrc tlic only vrluablc kiiids of action.” Neil L. Rudenstine’s Sidney’s /+wtir l)cvrc/o/irncvit (1967) ciiiphasizcs tlic iiitcgrity aid continuity of Sidney’s poetic work. Tlic basic priiidplcs of styk wliicli ilndcrlic dic Arcadia are the same as those which iillorrn die ~A$JICC nnd Ashopkll atid Stella. An nndysis of Sidney’s correspondence with higuct providcs n contact of tension aid debate as an approach to the poetry. This is pcrlinps tlic most coinplctc study of Sidney’s poctry (see my review, CJi xxn [1g70], poqr). Both Duxton nnd Boas (I, A) contain gcneral critical comments on Sidney’s work.

C. S . Lewis, Biglisli Litetatun hi the Sixtcctid Cerihtry (1954). has a chapter on Sidney and Spcnscr. Kcnncth Muir, Sir Philip Sidney, Writers and Their Work (1960). gives a g a i d introduction. Jean Robertson, “Sir Philip Sidney and His Poetry,” Elizabethan h ~ y , ed. John Ruucll Brown and B d Huris, Stratford-upon-Avon Studies, n (I*), I I 149, siuveys Sidney’s poetic output, sccing the tension between active and con- rcniplative in his work as the source of his popularity. John Thompson’s “Sir Philip Sidney nnd the Forvken Iamb,” KR, xx (1958). go-11~. is a study of Sidney’s me.trics and their importance which is incorporated into his The Fainding OfEnglish Metre (1961). For Sid- ney’s utplomtion of dysical metricS, see W h A. Ringla Jr., “Muter Drant’s Rules,”

Bcnt Jud-Jenscn~ ‘‘Some Uncokcted Authors xxxxv: Sir Phil;p Sidney, 1554-1586,” BC. xt (1g6t). 46-, and BC, w (1963). 196201, gives a primary bibliography of the Arcadia. Astrophil and Stella, Psaltns, MisctlLneous Works, Dcfencc, A Letter to Robert Sid- ncy, the translation ofMornay’s Trnvrtesse ofthe Christian Religion, and Apocrypha Samuel A. Tannenbaum’s Sir Philip Sidney: A Concise Bibliography (1941, rpt. 1967), is updated by George Robert Gdey, E/i%abet/ian Bibliogruphics Supplements, M (1967). My “Bibliog- nphy of Sidney Studies since 1935.*’ included in Kenneth Myrick‘s Sir Philip Sidney as a Utcrary Crajinan (2nd ed. 1965) is an annotated selection of studies which bear on My- rick’s original edition (1935). The second edition also contains a useful plot summary and list of characters for the Arcadia.

m. XxIJI (1950). 70-74.

11. STUDIES OF INDIVIDUAL WORKS

A. Arcadio. Possibly the most important event for the revival of interest in Sidney’s fic- don has been the publication ofSidney*s Arcadia, YSE, CLVIII (1965). This consists of two long studies, Walter Davis’ “A Map of Arcadia: Sidney’s Romance in Its Tradition,” and Richard Lanham’s “The Old Arcadia” (Lanham‘s contribution is h e d below, II, B). Davis’ first chapter discusses the complex background of pastoral romance in Greek, L a t h Italian. and Spanish literature. The pastoral romance has a basic action: Disintegration, Education, Reintegration, which Sidney uses and transforms. Davis illustrates that there is “an incrcdibIe sense of order” in the hrudin, “not merely a perceptible narrative line, bur a network ofparallel and contrasting scenes and actions, ofintricate thematic analogues, of

William L. Godshalk systems of thought presented and modified, as welL” In this regard, the pastord ad- in the Arcadia are importaut: ‘‘while they divide the plot book by book into &- of love, suf fe r ing , marriage, and deuh, they also gen& the plot and relate this p w action of two Greek priuces to the timeless themes of man’s life on ear& % dr;lw events into a general thematic unity, and thus provide a fnmcwork for all of the in& vidual episodes Sidney uses to amplify his plot” Davis condudes with a chapter on “rather paradoxical relation” of Sidney’s work to “& older pastoral romana.”

Davis’ ‘’Thematic Unity in the New Arcadia,” SP, LVU (1960). 123-43, and ‘‘Actaeon in kdia,“ SEL, II (1962). 95-1 10, supplement his long study. The first discuna the d a b rations which Sidney made in revising his Old Arudia and the second explores how Sid- ney’s allusion to the myth of Actaeon rdnforca the intanal snumre and hightightr & complex ironies of the cave m e with Pyr& and Gyntcia In Z&a and Ad in Eliz,~- betkun Fiction (1969) Davis begins with a comiclaation of Sidney‘s critiul ten- d m f- notable images “both teaches clearly and move^ men toward that which is 50

brilliantly presented to their perception.” Embodd mthcituagay,idasmovemblto action. In disa~~~ing the Arcculio, Davis’ new emphasis k that “rolr-Playin% tnnzforms ida into a’’ By making the pastoral romance d k to “a fpearnm of ideviond SLnq” Sidney was responsible for a new trend in the English Following Davis’ emphasis on complex smuturc,Nancy Rothwax Jimhim, ‘ ‘ S i q ’ s

Arcadia, Book D: Retrospective Narrative,“ SP, LXIV (I*), 159-86, analyzes the heroic narrative of the princa in the second book. While the t p m ~ Musidom dcscribcs are asso- ciated with traditional values, Pyrocles’ advcnturcs demand a ‘‘complex evaluation of right and wrong.’’ The narrative begins with easily made moral choices arid moves t- ward a world in which “both sidcs are often p d y wrong and values must be ranked one above the other before response is possible.” Mark Rose, HeToic Love: Studits in Sidnty und Spenser (1968). agrees with Lindheim that the world of the Arcad# is “the world of pressing moral problems rather than of the unalloyed harmony of the Arcadian ideal.” After ducemhg diffaent amtudes toward love in the Old and NN Arcadias. Rose vgua that Sidney’s concern in the New Arcadia is to d e the cor&&ng Elizabethan atti- tudes toward love. In this moral exploration, Sidney pLvs his characta in a pre-christk society, where they must rely on philosophy rather than religion. Classical stoicism must learn that not every passion is eviL The ending of the A r d i a “represents the mumph of quity over law, the accommodation ofjustice to the actual circumstances of the world” The pre-Christian setring notwithstanding, the hand of providence is evident throughout.

Alan D. Ider investigates various aspects of the Arcadiu in several articles. The genre to which the Anizdiu belongs is a recurring critical question. For example, Davis argues that it is pastoral romance, while Rose maintains it is heroic poetry. Isla, “Heroic Poetry and Sidney’s Two Arcadias,” PMLA, ~xxxm (1968). 368-79, argues t b both Old and New Arcadia are heroic poems. The fimction of heroic poetry is to teach and to inspire to virtue and since both hcadim were designed to carry out this fimction, they are heroic poern~. In “The Allegory of the Hero and Sidney’s Two Ardias,” SP, LXV (1968). 17191, Isler argues that Pyrocles and Musidorus represent respectively the virtues of “courage” and “wisdom.” Using this dichotomy, he analyzes the episode in which the heroes rescue the royal family from the onslaught of a bear and a lion. Pyrocles and Musidorus may “be said to be one hero in two bodies.’’ In “Sidney. Shakespeare, and the ’Slain-Notslain‘,” UTQ, xxxvu (INS), 175-85. Isler dscusses the comic rebelhon scene in which the rebels

romance

I 52 ~ r ~ ~ l i s h Litcrnry Rcrrnissarice arc disiiiciiibrd. Sidiicy obscrva dccoruiii, and Kcnncth Burke’s concept of “slain- iiotslniii” Iiclps to rcvcal tlic csscntially scrio-comic naturc of the description of the riot. Idcr’r “Moral Philosophy and tlic Family in Sidney’s Arcadia,” HLQ, XXXI (1968). 359- 71, cniplinizcs tlic rolc of tlic family in thc dissolution of the hierarchy in the Ardia.

Kuinctli Tliorpc Rowc, “l\onuntic Lovc and Y a r c n d Authority in Sydney’s [sk] Armdin,” Utrivcrsity ./ Mic/i[pwr Co~ttrilnrtiorts in M d e m Philology. IV (1947). 1-58. also considcn tlic rolc of thc family in thc Arcdin, which is distinguished by its balanced view of pamid authority and ronmtic lovc. Jolui F. Dmby, Poets OM Fortune’s Hill: Studies in Sidriey, Shakesyeare, a’nvrr~orct 6 Fletcher (rg~z), sccs thc Arcadia as a “Great House Ro- ~imcc,” intcndcd for thc instruction of a gentlunvL Sidney basa his work on the dual qualities of Christian patiencc and A r i s t o t h magnanimity. John Buxton, Eliurbcthen Taste (IW), fecls that the “question, whether the Arcadia is a romance or a heroic poem is a fdsc one, since the one kind does not exclude the other.” Although Buxton d;cusses generally the publishing background and the Arcudias iduence, he is interested s@- ally in Elizabethan attitudes toward the work. In a chapter “That Most Heroicke Spirit,” MYgacct Greaves, The Blaxon OfHonour: A Study in Rmaiumrce Magnanimity (I-), sees the h d i u embodying Sidney’s own m?gn?nimous ideals.

Myron Turner, “The Heroic Ideal in Sidney’s Reviscd Arcadiar,” SEL, x (1970). 63-82, believes that prodes md Musidorus embody R h c e idus of a godlike hero. In them Sidneyseelct to reconciledvsicalideals ofselfsuttidcncywithChristianidcalsofh&ty. Pamela embodies this reconciliation. Several articles deal with the background of the Ar- cadia. David Kalstone’s “The Transformation of Arcadia: Sannazaro and Sir Philip Sid- ney,” CL, xv (1963), 234-49, uses Samazaro as a pivotal figure. The essay fust “looks toward Pear& for his version of the lover in pastoral d e and toward Sannazaro to see how he incorporates the Pctrarchan lover into the Arcadia dialogue; second, it considers Sir Philip Sidney, to see the way in which Saunazaro provides a framework for one of Sidney’s best pastoral poems, the double sestina, ‘You Gotc-heard Gods.’ ” Sidney’s poem is a criticism of the “uncomplicated happiness” of Sannazaro’s virion. “Ye Gotc-heard Gods” has also been analyzed by William Empson, Seven Types ofhbigui ty (193 I; rpt. in Francis Murphy, ed., Discussions ofpoefry: Form and Structure [1964], 7-82), and John Crowe Ransom, The New Criticism (1941), 103-14 Freda L. Townsend, “Sidney and Ariosto,” PMLA, UCI (1946). 97-108, suggests that Ariosto provided the structural pat- tern for the Arcadia, but finds no direct imitation of Orlando Furioso in Sidney. While not suggesting that Sidney was deeply read in Machiavelli, Irving Ribner, “Machiavelli and Sidney: The Arcadia of 15g0,” SP, XLVII (1950). 152-72, points out that Sidney’s ideas are close to Machiavclli’s. Perhaps the most complete discussion of Sidney’s political ideas is Ernest William Talbert’s The Problem $Order: Elizabethan Political Commonplaces and an Evarrple ofShakcTeare’s Art (1962). 89-117. Roy Waker, The Golden Feast (1952). III- 13, deals with Sidney’s relation to the myth of the Golden Age. D. P. Walker, “Ways of Dealing with Atheists: A Background to Pamela’s Refutation of Cecropia,” EHR. XVII (1955). 252-77. genedy discusses the ideological background of the debate between aunt and niece. David McPherson, “A Possible Origin for Mopsa in Sidney’s Arcadiu,” RetrQ, XXI (1968). 420-28, suggests a pun on the Dutch mops (“a pug dog” or “country lout”) in its feminine Latin form Mopsa and explores Mopsa’s function.

P. Albert Duhamel, “Sidney’s Arcadia and Elizabethan Rhetoric.” SO, XLV (1948), I 34-50, examines the Arcadian rhetoric by comparing it with Lyly’s. Lyly’s prose is deco-

William L. Godshalk 153 rative and without complete arguments; Sidney’s is meaningful using logic as a basis for disposirio. Lorna Challis, “The Use of Oratory in Sidney’s Ardia.” SP, m (1g65), 561- 76, studies the formal speeches of the Arcadia and concludes that Sidney’s “practical exam- ples of oratory, with their emphasis on communication rather thau on daboration, un- doubtedly anticipate important aspects of modem rhetorical theory.”

Katherhe D. Duncan-Jones, in “Sidney’s Urania,“ RE& xvn (1966). 123-32, notes Sidney’s dunging conception of Urauia and suggests that the main point about the +e, as far as the story is concerned, is that she has left Arcadia. If she is a symbol for the Chris- tian muse, her departure may indicate that tbe Arcadia is not a divine but a secular work The iufluemx of the Ardia on Shakespeare’s Lear is cxamjned by Kam& Muir and

John F. Danby, ‘ ‘ h d i a and IGng Jim,’’ N&Q, cxcv (1950). 4 ~ 5 1 . Irving Ribner, “Sid- ney’s Arcadia and the Stnuxure ofKing ha,” SN, xxm (1952). 63-68. demonstrates that the structure of Jim is similar to that of the Arcadia: an a m king leaves a powa vacuum which is filled by evil. William R Elton, King b a r mrd the Godr (I@), has a chapter d k w i n g the four major && toward providmcc found in & h d i a and Gar. I(atherine Duncan-Joncs, “Nashe and Sidney: The Toumament in Tk U.f..h.l.t. TraveNer,“ MLR, r.xm (1968), 3-6, cites Sidney‘s use of chivalric convtnticm as a soura for Nashc 0. Brii&, “Sir Philip Sidney‘s Arcadin as a Source for John Webstcri The Duchess ofitfa@,’’ ESA, w (1*5), 31-55. suggests that Sidney c o d u t e s to the “racondary 6- fects” ofwebsta’s phy. L. c. Marrin, “Marvd, Musinga, and Sidney,“ II (1951), 37495. notes that passages &om the Arudia may be sources for h e l l ’ s ‘The Definition of Love”

(1942). 1@-zo6, synopsizes the plots in p d e l columns. D. hL Anderson, “ h e Trial of the Princes in the A r d i a , Book v,”REs,w (1957). 409-12, arpes that thc trial sene at the end of the ArEIldio was not revised to conform with the ideas of the Nclp Arcadia. The problem of revision is discussed in my “Sidney’s Revision of the Arcadiq Books m-~,’’ PQ. XLII~ (I*). 171-84. Afier ou- the publihing background, I Su%gest that Sid- ney’s revision did not progress linearly: he revised accordiug to certain broad topics. This method explains why certain parts of Books m-v are revised while other parts are nor Joan Rees, “Fdke Greville and the Revisions of Arcndia,” RES, xvn (I*), 54-57, qu& tions my inteqretation of Florio’s remarks in &yes ofMontaigne (1603) and suggesp that Sidney’s revision applies to the Old A r d i a , not to the Neut.

B. Old Arcadia. Lanham’s “The Old Arcadia” (above, II, A) is a thorough study begin- &g with the textS and including analyses of the themes, structure, speeches, rhetoric, and comedy. We should read the Old Arudia “as much as possible as we would a comic noveL For it was toward this form that Sidney was groping.” Franc0 Marenco, “Double Plot in Sidney’s Oldhdia,” M U , LXIV (I-), 248-63, suggests that Lanham’s attempt to read the Old Arcadia as a comic novel sadly miscarries. The Old A r d i a “is a gloomy, almost desperate book, mocldng and not glorfymg the worldly hero. . . . The strncrure of the work rests on the parallel and complementary development of two plots. . - involving the noble characters on the one hand, and the humble ones on the other.” Maram’s Arcadia Puritans: L’uso dellu tradizione nella prima Arcadia di Sir Philip Sidney (1968) argues that the Old Arcudiu contains a deep allegory under a fiivolous appearance. The allegory is gov- ern& by Sidney’s strict Calvinistic education, and the work as a whole is w h e n against

A. G. D. Wiles, ‘‘Parallel Analyses of the Two Versions of Siduey‘s Ar&” SP,

1.54 1 i i / , ~ / i s / i Litc*rtir y I < c w ciissniic~‘

p i i s i t d aiitl chivalric coiivciiiioiis. lilirebctli IXppIc, “Hariiiony and Pastoral in the Old Arrrrrlin,” III-If, xxxv (riNH), jm>zH, suggests tlint Sidiicy “takes the myth of a harmonic pnrndirr coiiiiiioii to <;reek niid Cliristinii tliOtip$t aiid phcn it w i t h the norms ofaaion typicnl of rcnl, post-lnpsarinii riicti. Tl~c result is a iiioral cxcniplum illustrating the ulti- iiintc iii:iclcqiincy of tlic roriiniicc Iicroc~.” Tlic riiovcriicnt of the action is from initial unity to frngiiiciitntioii. Dipplc, iii “ ‘Ur$ist Justicc’ in the Old hcudiu.” SEL, x (1970). 81-101, cxnriiiiin tlic iroriin of iiijasticc iii nooks IV and v where realistically &wed cliarnctcn nrc judgnl by absoltitc idcnls of morality.

C. Astrnpliil atid Stclla. Ridiard B. Young’s “English Pcuarkc: A Study of Sidney’s h hoplrcl arid Stclla,” in T/im Shdics in the Rnraissaiitc: Sidney, Jonson, Milton (1958). 1-88. ruggesn that tlic soiincts find tlicir unity of action “in the process of discovering and de- fining the rclatiori of surface and csscntial, manner and matter, Art and Nature.’’ Thae is an undcrlying tcnsion bctwccn tlic PctnKhvl convcntion and the reality of the love & which is tcsolvcd when Astropld becomes “aware of the nature o f h v e as the Petrarchan univcnd” witti “himselfas part of the convaaon, which, by virtuc ofhis participation in it, has acquircd p m c n t validity.” htt~ophil coma to see himsdfas a part of the love story hc is tdling. J. W. Lever, The Hixuktlran Love Sonnct (1956). devotes a solid chap tcr to Sidney's sonnets and their relation to the English and Pctrarchan traditions of poctry. Petrprch provides Sidney with a d o l d i n g for his poetry. but Sidney “is wn- caned with an empirical approach to love in tern= of its psychological and moral &m.”

A. C. Hamilton, “Sidney’s Astrophel and Stellu as a Sonnct SequenG” ELH, XXXVI (I*), 59-87. discussa recent attempts to find a thrcepart structure in the sequence and argues that his own tripartite division allows the reader to see Astrophil and Stella “as one long poeni with a unifjkg structurc.s’hnora Ltet Brodwin, “The Structure of Sidney’s Astrophel urid Stella,” Mp, ~xvn (I-), IS+O. f&. with Hamilton, that the sequence should be divided into three puts, and searches for a principle from which to make the division. This principle may be found in “the source of the action. The divisions which result from this principle of construction do not only form int+ble units but are further distinguished by a secondary principle of consistently developed imageq patterning.” John Bmon, Elizubedtun Tate (1966). divides the sequence at sonnets 32 and 63 and dis- cusses the publishing background and autobiographical elements. There are a d y four characters in the sequence: Sidney and Astrophil, Penelope Deverew and Stella; and the elaborate interplay of fiction and reality is essential to our enjoyment of the sequence. Ahstair Fowler, Triratrpltul Form: Sfrurturul Puttenis irt Elizabethun Poetry (1970). discusses the numerical construction, its “ingenious complexity” and its “asymmemd . . . charac- ter.”

Ldand Ryken, “The Drama of Choice in Sidney’s Awophel and SfelLz,”/EGP, LXVIII

(1969). 648-54, discusses the element of choice as a central s t r u c t ~ ~ a l principle in the se- quence. He points out that this view has implications which d k c t our interpretation of individual sonnets, the image of Astrophil, and the overall structure. Ann Romayne Howe, “Actrophel und Stellu: ‘Why and How’,” SP. LXI (1964 ISO+, suggests Sidney’s purpose “was to mirror the misery of a lover tom between passion and reason, passion and virtue, passion and Platonic love, with no hope for the resolution marriage could offer.” Her essay is a full consideration of the sequence: dating, rhetoric, text. Following Howe’s essay in moral tone, B. P. Ha&, “Astrophil and Stella: Precept and Example,”

William L. Godshalk ISS P& v (1969). 397-414 feels that there is a seven-part division which &ves the structure of Sidney’s Defmce ofPoafe. As Myrick (I, B) has shown, the D t f w k b& on the StrUQure of a c l a s s i i oration, and Harfst suggests quivalents in the seq- Jams Finn Cotter, “The Songs in Astrophil und Stelb.” SP. ~XVII ( r g p ) , 178-204 &

cusses the eleven songs in the final third of the sequence “Reason not only g o v m the manner but also supplies the burden of these songs.” Sherod U Coopa Jr., The S- ,f Actrophd und S d b : A Stylistic Study (1968). in~estigata Sidney’s vdca t ion , rhyme schemes. vocabulary, rhetoric, and imagery. A final chapta considers English and firnch stylistic hfhcncs. John F. Mahoney, “The Philobophical Coheraxc and Litavy Motive of &pkl und Stefb,” h y s curd Studies in h g u u g e rmd Limumc, d Habac Pctit (1964). 24-37, u m s i b the possible neo-Platonic background of S i s dxmgk HaUut Smith, Elkubeh Poeby: A Study in Conventions, Miming, mdErprercion (1~). has an mte~csting discussion of Astrophif und Stella

Jack Stillingcr, “The Biographical Problem of Amophrl rmd S t e l k z ~ ~ G P , J.IX (I*), 617-39. surveys the evidmce for a love a&& h e e n S i and Paulopc Dcpcrrre ~ o ~ S i d n c y ~ y i n d t e d b e ~ t r o p ~ “ t o b a K t h c i d a o n e v i d a u r ~ ~ ~ m t h k paper is not sound scholaxship.” Stillinger’s position is supported by Ephirn Fogel, ‘3%~ Mythical Sorrows of Astrophel,” Studies in L.ungnugc und LitaMlre in Honour ofMtrpvet SJJmrck, d U Bnhma et d. (I*), 133-52. Fogel belwa that r o n n a s 2 and 33 m not Sidney’s Lmmts over the faa that he did not marry Penelope (Set Jean Robccrsoa, RES, xp. above. I, A)

D. The &fa of Po&. k E. Ivlalloch, ‘‘ ‘Architectonic’ Knowledge and S i s Apobgi~,’’ ELH, xx (1953). 181-85, argues thar the basis for Sidney’s defase of poetry k the concept of selflcnowledge, ‘‘architectonic’’ know1cdgc F. MiChad Krouse, ”Pko and Sidney’s Dtfmc afPoe.de,” CL, VI (1954). 138-47, believes that the D&mc “rdics prinapdy upon Plat0 for its fundamental conceptions of the nature of poetry and the whole question of the relationship between form and fimction.” Sidney may have had first-handknowledge ofPlato’s work. John P. Mchtyre, S.J., “Sidney’s ‘Golden World’.” CL, XIV (1%2). 356-65, suggests that Sidney’s Platonism was transmuted by Flormdnc neo-PLatonism, and that neo-Platonism was the most immediate source for Sidney’s idev in the B f m .

A. C. Hamilton, “Sidney and Agrippa,” RES. VII (1956). 151-57, explains that Sidnsy uses Agrippa’s argument in De vanitute as a device to attack the other arts and sciaces while he establishes the central importance of poetry. Like Agrippa, Sidney wishes to re- place “knowledge with vision.” In “Sidney’s Idea of the ‘Right Poet’,’’ CL, IX (1957). 51-59. Hamilton analyzes Sidney’s concept of the “right Poet” in order to ascertain his origidity. The right poet does not imitate fallen nature, but creates a golden world of his own. Sidney integrates the major traditions of criticism: Platonic, Aristotelian, and Italian Renaissance. Looking at the Defence from a Christian viewpoint, Frank B. Evans, “The Concept of the F d in Sidney’s Apologie,” RenP 1969 (1970), +I.+, suggests that a fd understanding of Sidney’s theory “must take into account not only the f u n d a n d importance of the Fall in Sidney’s argument--disguised as this is by the pose of a non- dogmatic philosopher-but also the daring independence &om contemporary convention exhibited in his diagnosis that the Fall infected man’s d but left his wit ‘erected.’ ” k-i- ginia Riley Hyman, “Sidney’s Definition of Poeq ,” SEL, x (1970). 49-62, points our

E. The LnAy ofMny. S. K. Orgd, “Sidncy’s Expcrinicnt in Pastoral: The U y ~ M U Y , ” JM’CfI XXVI (1963). 198-203, s e a thc phy as an cxanhaaon of the pastoral assumption that tlic coiitciii$tivc l i c is best. This m a t d is included in Orgel’s The]oncrkn A4usqtrr (r965), 44-56. Robcrt Kinibrough and Philip Murphy, ‘“I’he Helrningham Maiiiucript of Sidncy’s The h d y OfMay: A Commentary and Trulxription,” RmD, N.S. I (1968). IOg-Ig. point out chat Sidney’s p i e is an elaboration of the I& contrut~ aid nr+y’o.Thcy suggest that Thaion is“clcu1y a Lcicatcr-figurc”and that the piece & for Elizd-dis favor for the EarL Although Orgd feek that Eliubeth seleabd wrongly k a t u c slic was not following the logic of the action, the authors think she knew exactly w h a t shc was doing when she rcjected Thcrion-Leicater. The Hdmhgham MS., which now belongs to Arthur Houghton Jr.. contains a final speech by Rombus “which makes charer thc fict that Leicater was seeking a favorable gesture from the QW~JL’’ A tran- scription of thc manuscript is g i v a Mary M. Ptudy, “Political Propaganda in Ballad and Masque.” Ifby yorrr art: Tcsturrrnrt to PercivolHurrt, ed. Apes Starret (1948). 264-93, feels the play r d m the discussion of Elizabeth’s possible marriage.

F. Srurc o j Criticisrri. Sidney studies have flourished in the last two decades. We have a reliable te\T ofhis poetry, thorough studies ofhis poetic techniques, and critical examina- tions of the major works. The preceding pages describe only a s m a l l amount of the fust- class critical literature. However, there are still things to be done. Though Rudenstine’s study is a step in the proper direction, we need a more comprehensive synthesis which at- tcnipa to place Sidney’s theoretical and political work in context with his fiction and b poetry. Further, Howell’s recent biography does not completely supply the need for an up-to-date “life and letters’’ which takes into account not only Sidney the politician, but also Sidney the writer. Finally, an inexpensive, modernized text of the hcud ia is needed.

111. CANON

A. Alnjor Work. Sidney’s canon is not a major problem. William A. Rhgler Jr., ‘‘Poem Attributed to Sir Philip Sidney,” SP. XLVII (1950). 126-51, examines the question of attribution, and in his edition of Poertrc (ID, B) deals carefully with attribution and dating. Ephim G. Fogel, “A Possible Addition to the Sidney Canon,” MLN, LXXV (1960), 359-94, suggests that “Yeelde yeelde, 0 yeelde” and ‘‘Ahme aUarme” be

William L. Godshalk I57 added to poem^ ‘‘pO&bly by Sidney.” Forrest G. Robinson, “A Note on the SiQq- Golding Translation of Philippe de Mornay’s D e Lo Vetid De Lo Religion Ckrerrienne,” HLB. XVII (I-), 98-102, concludes that stylistic evidence is inconclusive in authorship to the d&&rcnt parts of the translation. All we know is that “Sidney starred the job, made some progress, and then left the rest to Goldiug.”

B. Critique offhe Standmd Editions. Reissuing in 1962 the prose d o n s of Fedecat’s edG tion, 4 vok. (1912-26). the Cambridge University Press admitted that bibliographical rc- search had dccermined that the edition was not based on the bat c0py-tcxt-s and that the editor had made many mistakes in transcription. A case in point is F d e n t ’ s r + n t POL IV) of the OId Arcodicr kom the Clifford W. A caref3l collation of the reprinf with the original manuscript reveals kequent QTOK. It may be many years before a dchit ivc edition of Sidney’s prose appears. W& A. Jr.. ed., The P m cfSir Philip S i 6 ”g, (1962). is an extremely valuable edition of the poepy. His htroduction discuses biography, influence and sources, dates and composition, poetic chuaaerttics aud inn- vations, transaiption and publication. The Commctary, following the text, k a rich source of explanatory inf0rmat011. For some limitadons of this generally exccUaV edi- tion, see my review, CL, XVI (1964). 285-86.

C. Tuctucrl Stdies. RodaiEk L. Fkgle, “The rlrradio (1593) Titld’age Border,” Librury, IV (1949). 6871. discussa the background and maning of ~ I C title-page, wbich was probably aeSignea by Hugh Sanford. George Walton Williams, ‘“&Printer of the Fim Folio of Sidney’s Arcadia,” Library, XII (19~7), 274-75, argues that John W i n k probably printed the 1593 Arcadia. W h Bond, ‘“The B i b I i o g r a p h i c a l J ~ TLS, 23 !+tan- ber 1949.624, reviews the evidence for considering An Apologie for Poetrie (Olney) ratha than The Defence of Poesie (Ponsonby) as the tirst edition. NeverrhdcJs, the D.f.N. con- tains the authorized text. h h r y Mahl, “A Treatise of Hoaman Shipp [sic],” TLS, 21 Dc- cember 1967,1245, notes that Francis Blomefield (1705-52) mistakcny identified a sub-

was ako announced in PMLA, ~xxxm (1968). 466.

D. Single Work Editions- J- C. A. Rathmell, ed., The Psalms of Sir Philip Sidney and the Countess OfPentbroke (1963). aims to present “the finally revised form of the text” &om the manuscript d b e d by John Davies of Hereford. There is a valuable htroduction. Max Putzel, ed., Astrophil and Stella (1967). gives a modemized text based on &n$er’s (4 B) and an Ina’oducdon, full commentary, and notes. T. W. Craik, ed., Sir Philip Sidney: Selectionsfiom Armdia and Other Poetry U n d f i 0 5 e (1965), is an introductory volume of selections with a briefcommentary. Rosemary Syfrer, ed., Sefediotrtfiom Sidney’s Ar- cadia (1966), uses the 1599 edition. There is a useful Introduction and notes. Thcre is a re- print of the 1590 edition, Sir Philip Sidney: Arcadia (1970). with an Introduction by Carl Dennis. J. A. van Dorsten, ed.. A Defence ofpoetry (1966). uses the Penshurst MS.. collated with the Ponsonby and Olney editions. Mary Mahl, ed, The Apologyfor Poetry (I-). reprints the Defence from the Norwich Sidney Manuscript (c. 1600). She feels that this text “is no more than one step removed &om Sidney’s holograph” Geo&ey Shepherd, ed., An Apolozy for Poetry or The Dpfeme ofpoesy (IMS), contains a bibliography, Inno- duction, and thorough notes. This is now the standard edinon. Maurice Lebcl, C n Phi-

stantive manuscript of Sidney’s D$me as a treatise on h o d ‘p. Mahl‘s dixovcry

158 English Litcrnry licnnissoncc doycr pour la Pocsic (1965). is a Frcndi-EngliIi parallcl t a t with historical notes. The Scolar Pras has produced a facsiniile of Poiisonby’s 159s edition of the D g m e (1968).

Scc also 1. GENERAL

Applegate, James. “Sidney’s C h i d MctctS,” MLN. LXX (1955). 254-55. Babin, Mvia Teresa. “Garcilaso de la Vega y Sir Philip Sidney.” La Nueva Demwacia,

Bcvan, Bryan. “Sir Philip Sidney,” Confemporary Review, CLXXXVI (1954). 346-49. Biagi, Adele. Sir Philip Sidney: L’mopago e la D@a dclla Pacsia (1958). Bond, W& H. “A Lecw from Sir Philip Sidney to Christopher Plantin,” HLB, w

- . “A Letter of Lauguet about Sidney,” HLB, M (Igss), ~os-og. Brett, Philip. ‘‘The English Consort Song, 1~~1625,” Proceedings offlu Royal Mucicnl

Bditt, John M. “The Use of Rhyme Link in the Sonnets of Sidney, Drayton, and Spen-

Check&&, Muriel May. Portraits ofRmarcsOnre hi and Thought (1964). Crane, Ronald S.. et of. Critics and Criticism, Ancient and M h (1952). Dent, Robert W h . John Webm’s Borrowings (1960). Donten, J . A., van. “The Arts ofMcmory and Poetry,” ES, LVXJI (1967). 419-25 [review

article]. -. “Sidney and Languct,” HLQ, XXIX (1966). 215-22 [Languet’s influence on Sid-

ney’s politics]. Doughtic, Edward “Sidney, Tesier, Batch& and A Musiurff Banquet: Two Notes,” RN, XVIII (1965). 123-26 panid Batch&. the musician. was Sidney’s page].

Dowlin, Cornell. “Sidney and Other Men’s Thought,” RES. xx (1944). 257-71. Endicott, Annabel. “Pip, Philip and Astrophel: Dickens’s Debt to Sidney?’’ Dickensian,

Evans, Maurice. English Poefry in the Sktemth Century (2nd ed., 1967). Ewing. S. Blaine. “A New Manuscript of G r d e ’ s Lfe 4S idq ,”ML.R, XLIX (1954).

F a . Cyril “Pendope Rich and the Poets: Philip Sidney to John Ford,” EDH, xxvm

(1953)~ 6375-

(19S4)’ 23335-

Arsocioti~, lxxxw (1g61-62), 73-88 [Sidney and bis circle].

,.,pGP, (1950). 14-32.

- (19671, 15862.

424-27.

(1956)~ 123-37. . “Sir Philip Sidney and His Age.” Illustrated London News. 10 July 1954, 54.

Farmer, Norman K.. Jr. ‘‘Fuke G r d e and the Poetic of the Plain Style,” TSLL, XI (1969). 657-70 [Sidney’s relation to G r e d e and his poetry].

Erguson, Wallace K., et al. Thc R m h : A Symposium (1953). Ferruolo. Amolfo. “Sir Philip Sidney e Giordano Bruno.” Convivium (Barcelona), Oc-

Foote, Dorothy Norris. The Constant Star: The L i i dFrances WaLtingham (1959). haser, RursdL “Sidney the Humanist.” SAQ. LXVI (1967). 87-91. Gal, Isman. “Sir Philip Sidney’s Guidebook to Hungary,” HSE, N (1969). 5364. Goldman, Marcus. “Sidney and Harington as Opponents of Superstition,”fEGP, LIV

tober 1948,686-99.

(‘955), 526-48.

William L. Godshalk IS9 Greenleaf, W. H. Or&, Empiricism, andPolirirc: Two Traditions ofEnglish P o l i u Thacght,

Gregory, E. R, Jr. “Du Bartas. Sidney, and Spcnser,” CLS. VII (IWO). 437-49- Grigson, Geofiey. Poets in Their P d e . (1962). H ~ m d t O n , A. C. “Et in Arcadia Ego,” MLQ. lw~l (I*), 332-50 [revicw uddc of

-. “The Modern Study of Renaissance English Literature: A Cr3ial Survey,”

Herrick, Marvin T. “Trcssino’s Art ofPoetry,’,” Essays on Skokupcmc and the El-

Hunta, G. K. “I%e Drama~ic Tachniqus of Sh;lkspeues Sonnus,’’ EIC, m (1953).

Jama, J. B. “The Other Sidney,” H i T&y, xv (1965). 183-90. John, Lisle C. “The Fint Edition of the Letters of Hnba Lauguct to Sir Philip Sidney,”

-. “Sir Stqhcn Le Sieur and Sir Philip Sidney,” ICILQ, xvn (1956). 3-51 [L.

Judson, Alexander C. Sidnyi 4pearanre: A Shdy in Ekzubetha~~ Portraiture, IUPHS, XIS

Kab& Aage. Metri.de Studien 11: Antiker Fonn sich rdhemd (1960). Kellogg, Elizabeth R Studyfor u Porfrd ofsir Philip Sidnq, (1959). Ramode, Frank. William Shukespeure: 7 % ~ Final P k s , W l W (1963). Koppdds. Wcmcr, von. “Two Nota on Imprue m Elizabethan Lkramrc,’’ RarQ,

Kuersteiner, Agnes D. “A Note on Sir Philip S i , ” N&Q, cxcm (1948). 26- [mis-

Lanham, Richard A. “Sidney: The Omament of His Age,” SoRA, n (1967). 319-40- Levy. Charles S.“AnUnpubli~hcd Letter of Sir Philip Sidney,”N&Q, xm(1g66), z448-51. Lay. F. J. “Sir Philip Sidney and the Idea of Histoq,” BIIR. XXVI (1g65). 608-17. Maclean, Hugh N. “Grde’s ‘Poetic’,’’ SP, LXI (I&), 170-91. r‘Grcv&”s . - . highly

individual poetic. . . contrasts quite sharply with the theory of poetry. . . in the Dc-

Marenco, Franco. “Sir Philip Sidney: Studi rg6j-rg66,” FeL, XUI (1967). 216-zq [review

Marsh, T. N. “Elizabethan Wit in Metaphor and Concdt: Sidney, Shakespeare, Do~c,”

McCoy, Dorothy Schuchman. Tradition und Convention: A Sbdy of Periphrasis in En,olirh

McMahon, A. Philip. “Sir Philip Sidney’s Letter to the Camere” PMLA, LXII (1947).

Miles, Josephine. Renaissance, Eighteenth Century, und Modmr h g u a g e in English P M q : A Tabufur View (I*).

Mill, Adair. “Tottel’s Miscellany and England’s Helicon,” Ingilir Felolojesi Dprgin‘ ( s m d s by Members of the Department of English, University of Istanbul), m (1953), 42--60.

Morris, Harry. “Richard B d e l d , Amptar. and the Sidney Circle,” PrML4, (1959). 3 18-24 [“a network of interesting relationships”].

2500-1700 (1964)-

Ralstonc, I, B; Davis, II, A; and Lanham, II, B].

MLQ. XXVI (1965). 150-83.

l)lcrmcr in Honor ofHmdin Craig, eb Ridrvd tfc+ (IS&), 1 5 - t ~ .

1 S A 4 .

PGP, n v m (1949). 36166 [1633 l5fz.m vohme of hers].

Sieur was Sidney’s sctretar~r].

(1958) [porrnits of Sidney].

xxm (IWI), 13-25.

uauslaaon in Pears’s &on of Letters].

fence-”]

article J .

EM, xm (1962)~ 25-29.

Pastoral Poetryjom 1557-2725 (1965).

83-95.

1 60

OiiR, Wultcr J., S.J. “Latin Lmigiiegc Study as n R a i h i c c Puberty Rite,” SP, LVI

<Isborn, Jniiics M. “Sidiicy niid I’ictro Iliznri.” RctrQ, XXIV (1971). 34-54. l’ctcrsoii, I>ouglm L. ‘I%c EII&~ LyricJottr Wyat t to Dorrrie: A History athe Pfain and

lihiqrirtrt Styks (1967). 186-zox. l’liillips, Jaiiics E. “ l h i c l Itogctr: A Nco-Latin Link Bctwccn the Pleiade and Sidney’s

‘hcopagiis’,’’ Nrc+-Lo/iri Poetry d f/ic Sixtcorth nrrd Sevmtrmth Centuries: Papers by jarircs E. P/ii//ifu arid Dori Cariicroii Al/err (1965). 3-28. - , "George Duchaian and the Sidney Cirdc.” HLQ. xn (1948). 23-55 [connectiom between Dudienui aid Sidney’s friends during the decade p r d g Buchanan’s death h 158r].

(IYSC)), 103-24.

Poiricr, Midid. “Quelqua sources d a potma de Sidney,” EA. XI (1958), 150-54 - . “Sidney’s Influence Upon A Mi&otmier N$it’sDream,” SP, XLIV (1947). 483-89. . Sir Philip Sidiiey, le chevalier p o h tiizab4thain (1948). Potts, L J. ‘(Ben Jomon and the Sevmtmth CennUy,” E6S, N.S. XI (1949). 7-24. Rccs, Joui. “Fulke Greville’s Epitaph on Sidney,” RES, XIX (1968). 47-51 [discusses Gre-

villc’c projected tomb containing Sidney and himdf, and prints John Coke’s comments on Grcville’s epitaph on Sidney].

Ribner, Irving. “Machiavelli and Sir Philip Sidney.” University ofNorth Carolina Record,

Rice, W m u G. Wterature as a Mode d T r a v e l ( r g 6 3 ) . Rona, Eva. “Sir Philip Sidney and Hungary,” Annales Universitatis Scientiurum Buda-

Rosmbcrg, Ekanor. Jkiccster, Pafron ofLctters (1955). Rossky. W h . “Imagination in the EngW Renaissance: Psychology and Poetic,”

Rowse, A. L. The Elizabethans and Amnica (1959). Sicgel, Paul N. “The Petrarchan Sonneteers and Nec-Platonic Love,” SP, XLI~ (1945).

“Sir Philip Sidney’s Anniversary.” T L S . 10 December 1954. 812. Smieja. Florian. “Poeta amgiekki skga PO koronc pol.&.” Zycie, No. 50 ( I~so) , 5. Stanford, Ann. “Anne Bradstreet’s Pomait of Sir Philip Sidney,” EAL, I (1g66), 11-13. Strong, Roy C., and J. A. van Dorsten. Leicester’s Triumph (1964). Teen, Bruce. “TWO Faces of Style in Renaissance Prose Fiction,” Sweet Smoke ofRhetoric:

A Collcdiorr of Reriaismtrce Essays, ed. Natalie Grimes Lawrence and J. A. Reynolds (1964). 69-81.

Vickery, John B. “William Faulkner and Sir Philip Sidney?,” MLN, IXX (Igjs), 34p-50 [Fauher’s phrase “Nilebarge datterfdque” may come from Defence].

Weiss, Wolfgang. Der Refiaitz in der ekubetharrisc/ren L p ’ k (1964). W&es. G. A. “The Sequence of the Writings of Fulke Grede , Lord Brooke,” SP, LVI

Williamson, George. Sevenfeenth Century Cotrfex~c (1960). Yates, Frances A. “Elizabethan Chivalry: The Romance of the Accession Day Tik,”

. “The Emblematic Conceit in Giordano Bruno’s D e Gli Eroici Furori and the

NO. 478 (19~0). 113-1.5.

pestiauis de Rolando Eotvos Nominatee. Sectio Philolcyim, n (I*), 46-50.

S R ~ J , v (1958). 49-73.

164-82.

(1959). 489-503.

]wcI, xx (1957). 4-25.

Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences,”]WCI, VI (I945), 101-20.

William L. Godskalk 161

hdvoor t , R W. “S&uy in Austria,” Anglistiche Studien: Fcrtrrkrifr zum 70. &* ion ProJmor Frierltick Wild, ed Karl Brunner et d., WBEP. IXVI (1958), 227-45.

-. “Sir Philip Sicbey, 15~4-Novanber 30-1954,” ES, xxxv (1954). 262-63.

11. INDIVIDUAL WORKS

Ahrends, Gunter. Liek, Schonheit und Tugend aLr Strukturelemente in Sidneys Asaophel and Stella und in Spensers Amoretti (1966).

Anderson, D. M “The Dido Incident in Sidney’s Arcudia.” m (1956). 417-19 [in- cident hu moral purpose].

Baughan, Denver. ‘‘Sidney‘s Defenrc ofthe Em1 of Leicater and the Revised Arcudia,”JEGP, II (1952). 35-41. [Sw was possibly stimulated to revise Ardia because of the attack on Dudley in Ley- Commonwealth.]

Beaty, F~edaick. "Lodge's Forbonius undPrisceria and Sidney’s Ardiu,” ES, XLIX (1968). 38-45 [Lodge earliest to be influcnccd by Old Arrndia].

Bcaucha~np, Virginia W. “Sidney’s Sister as Translator of Gamier,” RN, x (1957). 8-13

Bicd.rzycka, Halina ‘‘Ekmenty klasycme w Obronie P q ‘ i Ebpa Sidney,” Roaniki

Bond, W h “Sidncy and Cupid’s Dart.’’ MLN, ~ ~ n n . (1948), 258 [ h o p h i f , sonnet 5,

Brentlbck, Ernest. “Shabpeare’s ‘Singing Man of Windsor’,’’ PMLA, IXVI (1951), 118892 [cf. 2 Hmry N n i N o , with Sidney’s Dixourse to tfw Queen’s Mujesty].

Burhaus, Clinton S., Jr. “Sidney’s ‘With How Sad Steps, 0 Moon’,” Expl, xvm (I*), Itun 26.

Caspari, Fria Humunkm andthe Sorial Or& in TudorEnghnd (1954; rp“ 1968) [Arcodia]. Castley, J. P., S.J. “Astrophel and Stellu--‘High Sidnaean Love’ or C o d y Compli-

h e y , Maurice “Hawthorne and Sidney’s Arcudia,” NGQ, VII (I*), 264-65 [Haw-

Chatterjee, Vmanath. “Sidney and the Critical Tradition,” Essays and Studies (Jadavpur

Combelkck, C. R B. “Sidney’s ‘With How Sad Steps, 0 Moon’,’’ Ekpl, xx (INI),

Cotter, James F. “Sidney’s &ophel and S@h, Sonnet 40,” Expl, XXVII ( rge ) , Item 51. . “Sidney’s h o p b e 1 rmd Stella, Sonnet 75,” &pl, XXVII (I-), Item 70.

Codmau, D. “ ‘Spotted to be Known*,”/WCI, xx (1957). 1 7 ~ 8 0 - Cowan. Stanley A., and Fred Dudley, “Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella, IX, 12-14,” E ~ p l , xx

Crompton, N. J. R. “Sidney and Symbolic Heraldry,” CoA, w (INS), 244-48 [Arcudia]. Cum, John P. “Dametas’ Song in Sidney’s Arcudia,” RN, XI (1958). 183-88 [contemp

D., A. “Possible Echoes &om Sidney’s Arcadia in Shakespeare, Milton and Others,” KEQ,

. “Shakespeare’s Sonnets,” NeQ, CXCVI ( I ~ s I ) , 5-6 [compares Shakespeare’s son-

[ f i f e u dnmatic cdicism].

Hummristymr. VI (19n). ~ - 9 s .

alludes to Sidney‘s oxat of arms].

ment?: CR, v (1962). ~ 4 s .

thorne did not read the Arrndia closely].

University, Calcutta). [See Yem’s Work in English Studies, x~lx (1968). 180.1

Item 25.

(IMz), Item 76.

rary musical setting suggests dramatic possibilides of Arcodia].

(1949). 554-55-

net 29 with Sidney’s Awophil, 64 and 1081.

I 0 2

I hlil, Ciirtiw. “Sidircy’s Asrnytlicl nttd Slz//a. LXXXIV.” i+/, VI (‘948). Itcm 46. I)ulrlin, 1)nvitl. CrMcd Apltroacltcs to Llftsratrrre (1956). 50-72 [De/nice]. I ) c i i i ~ ~ ~ c y l l’sril K. “Sidiicy’s ‘A id Have 1 I-lurtl I-lcr Say? 0 Crucll Paine!’,” I+/.,

I Npplo, lillznbcrlr. “‘~lic *I’orc Coiiccit’ of Sidiicy’s Eclogucs,” Literury Monograph, I , &.

I hiiirrii-Joiics, Elsie B. “I-icnry Oxiridai mid Sid~icy’s Arcadia,” NGQ, cxcvm (1953),

I)~iiiraii-Joiia, Katlicrhic. “A Note on Irish Pocts and thc Sidneys,” ES, xux ( r ~ g ) ,

h l g , Erhrdt. 4‘Si&~eyst ‘With How Sad Stcps. 0 Moon’,” Ekpl, xx (I%I), Item 25. &hy, Prnnk J. “Sidney’s Venc Adaptations to Two Sixteenth-Century Italian &t

hgcl, Ephiiii. “Milton and Sir Philip Sidney’s Arcudiu.” N&Q, CXCVI ( I~sI ) , 115-17

Prrimce, Abrdinm. W e Arcadian Rhctorike, d Ethel Seaton (1950). Freer, Cobum. “The Style of Sidney’s P s h , ” L&S, XI (1969). 6378. h t i l i i Vanna. “La ’Tngicomcdy’ dell‘ Astrophil und Skllu.” A U L , I (1g63-64). 5-2. Gdm, h e s t . “Primitivistic Mot& in Sidney’s Arudia.” PMASAL, MV (I*), 36371

r thc :nost important kind of primiavism in the work is cultural”]. Gottfricd, Rudolf. “Autobiography and Art: An Elizabethan Borderland,” Lifcrury Criti-

cistii and Historical Utrderstudiq, ed. P. Dmon, EIE (1967). 1-34 [Astrophil]. Hduii, George. “Sidney’s Supposed Ramism,” RerrP 1963 (1964), 11-20 [Defenrc). Iidtzcl, Virgil. “The Arcadian Hero,” PQ. xu (1962). 173-80 [a dehition]. Hofiiian. Dan. “Sidncy’s ‘Thou Blind Man’s Mark‘,” E p l . vm (1950). Item 29. Hogan, Patrick. “Sidney and Titian: Painting in the Arcadia and in the Defence’ SCB, IV

H o h g e r , Walter. “Dcr Abitlreurliclie Sitnp~icissintus and Sir Philip Sidney’s Arcadia,” CoIIG. 11 (IW), 184-98 [Arcudia’s influence on Grimmelshausen].

Jakobson. Roman. “The Grammatical Texture of a Sonnet from Sir Philip Sidney’s At- cadia,” Shidies it1 Lartgimage mid Literahire in Honour ofMargaret Schlauch, ed. M. Brahmer (1966). 165-73-

Kdstonr. David. “Sir Philip Sidney and ‘Poore Pctrarclzs Long Deceased Woes’,”JEGP, miti (1964). 21-32 [Astro$/].

~lsman.Robert.“Sidney’s~tropirelandStella, SOMet w, 1-2,”Eupl,~1 (xgso), Item 56. Lcbd, Maurice. “Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) et son Plaidoyer pour la Poksie (ISgS),”

Lyla, Albert. “A Note on Sidney’s Use of Chaucer,” NGQ, CXCVIII (1953). ~ 1 0 0 [cf.

Marenco, Franco. “ A s t r o ~ l ~ ~ l mid Stella,” FeL, XIII (1967), 72-91, 162-91. -. “Per una nuova interpretazione dell’hcadia di Sidney,” EM, xw (1966). 10-48. -. “Sidney e l’hcudia ndla critica letteraria,” FeL, XU (IW), 337-76. MdVeir, Waldo. “The Behaviour of Brigadore: The Faerie Queene, V, 3, 33-34,” NeQ.

Montgomery, Robert. “Reason, Passion, and Introspection in Astrophel and Stella,” Uni-

I~t!qlislr l h r i i r y H i’rr nissnr rcc

(iya7), ttciii $1.

l i r k I\ntlirtciti t f al. (ty67). I, 3-47. 301-03 [Arcadia].

j r a i l ~ 1C)xiiidcii i i s a Arcidiai dcscrilitiolu in a 1640 Icttcr].

4r4-a~ [Irish badrgroiind of Dcjtin].

SMIQS,” H a i Q , XXIU (1970). 237-5s [Certaitie Sotinets 3. 4.261.

[cf I)lhid raplilagonian king with Milton’s Samson].

(1967). 9-1s.

PTRSC. 4th Ser. I (1963). 177-86.

Astrophil, 39, with Book ofthe Drcchess, ~50-611.

N.S. I (1954), 103-04 [Defence].

wrsiry o j Texa, Studies bi English, XXXVI (1957), 127-40.

William L. Godshalk 163 Muk, Kenneth. “Asvopkl and Stella. q’’ NGQ. VII (1960). 51-52 [r-

line: ~ ~ t r o p h i I calls Stdla’s virtue ‘ u n g r ~ ~ ~ ’ ] . -. “ M c ~ ~ u s ’ s Fabk,” NGQ, CxcVm (1953). 240-42 [LkJ -. Murphy, KarL “The 14 and 110th Sonnets of Astrophef and Stella, P Q xxxm (1955).

New&. glemtns. “Eine spanishe Ubersetzung der DefetKc 0fPm.e von Sir Philip Si-

Ogden,Jamcs- “Huli t t , Lamb and Asbophef and Stella,” Tiivhm, n (1967). 141-42. Perkinson, Richard. “The Epic in Five Acts.“ SP, x m (1946). q65-81 [Arclrdicr]. Pttter, E. C. Shakespeare and the Romance Trodirion (1949) [Arudiu].

34942.

ney.” Anglia, u ~ x n (19~4-s~). 46345.

-. “Sidney and the Cult of Romantic LOVC,” Englirh, VI (1947). 232-40 [ h e philj.

VI (1967), 125-47- Pontcda;s Claudio. “PocciCa e poesia neU’Apobgyfir Poetry di Sir Philip Sidney,” ACF.

Puucl, Max. “Sidney’s &ophel and Stella, rx,” &pl, XIX (rg61). Itan 25. Pyle, Fitzroy. ‘‘TweZJth Night, King Lear, and Arcadia,” MLR., XLUI (1948). ag-55- R;lthmell, J. C. A. “Explorations and Recovcri&I: Hopbrios. Ruskin and the Sidney

Ribna, lrving. ‘‘W& and Sidney’s Diworrse to the Qurarer Mqsty,” Italicq XXVI

. “A Note on Sidney‘s Arcadia and A Midnunmer Nighti Dream,” Shakespeare Ass+

. ‘‘Sidney‘s Arcudia and the Machiavelli Legend,“ Italiar. XFPII (I~sI), 225-35-

. “Sir Philip Sidney on Civil hurrection,”JHI, XDI (1952). 25745 [rlrccrdia].

Pscrltn;” London Mercury, a, No. g (1959). 51-66.

(1949)s 17F87.

ciution Bulletin, x ~ r (1948). 207-08.

Roberts04 Jan- ‘‘MacW on Sleep: ‘Sore Labour’s Bath‘ and Sidney’s Amophil and

Rose,Mark.“Sidn~*s Wo&hMan.”RES,w (1964). 353-63 [aanmesdzm in&&]. Rota, FeIicina. L’Arcadiu di Sidney e i f tentro, con un festo inedito, Biblioteca di s t u d inglcd. VI (1966) brints Lave’s Changelings Change, previously unpublished anonymous sew- cnteenthatury play based on Arcadia].

Rothstein, Eric “English Tragic Theory in the Late Seventeenth Cent~uy,” ELH, XXIX

(1962). 3 6 2 3 [&jne contains earliest English & d v e theory]. Ryken, Leland “Sidney’s ‘Leave Me, 0 Love Which Reachest But to Dust’.” Erpl , (1967). Item 9-

Savage, Jama E. “Beaumont and Fletcher’s P h i h t m and Sidney’s Arcadia.” ELH. XIV

Schlauch, Margaret. Antecdents of the English Novel 1400-16a0, &om Chmrrpr to De%

Scribner, Brother Simon Figures .f Wdrd-Repetition in the Firsi Book of Sir Philip S i w s

Siegel, Paul N. “A Suggested Emendation for One of Sidney’s Sonnets.” NCQ. (IxW

Steadman, John- “ ‘Meaning’ and ‘Name’: Some Renaissance Inrcrpretadom of U&”

Suoup. Thomas. “The ‘Spealung Picture’ Realized: Sidney’s 45th Sonner.” PQ. XXIX

stelfa. a’’ W (1967). 139-41-

(19471, 194-d.

(1963).

Arcadia (1948).

(1949), 75-76 [Astrophil, Sonnet 31.

NM, w (rg63). 20g-j~ [Arcadin].

(1950), 44s42-

164 13icqlisli Litcmry 12ciiaissnricc ’Ihalcr, Alwin. Shukcspeuri~ arril Sir 1 W i p Siclrrc-y: ‘l‘h Ii&etrcc Of Thc Defence of poesy

Tillyard, E. M. W. ?‘lie Ergfish Epic nrrd Its BucLyormd (1954). 294-319 I h ~ d i l l j . -. “Milton and Sidncy’s Arcudia,” TLS, 6 March 1953, 153. Vniidcrlicydni, Jan. “Dc vcrtaling vnii Sir Philip Sidncy’s Defence ofPocsic door Joan de

Wilkhs, Enicst Iintch. “Arcadii in Aiiiwia,” PAPS, CI (1957), 4-30.

(1947).

H m (r712).” VWKVA (1964). 315-51.

111. CANON AND TEXT

Bwton, Jolm. “On die Date of SYR P.S. His Aslrophelatrd Stella.. . .Printed for Matthew

-. “The Sidney Exhibition,” BLR, v (rgjs), 125-30. Jud+nscn, Bent. “Sidney’s Arcudiu, Longon 1~99: A Dktinehed Ghost,” BC, XVI

-. “SU Philip Sidncy’s Arcadin. 1638: An Unrecorded Issue,” Library. m01 (1967).

Saonsy, G c i L “Another Huntington Manuscript of the Sidney P s h . ” mQ.

Wila, A. G. D. “The Date of Publication and Composition of Sir William Alexander’s

-. “Sir William Alucanda’s Continuation of the Revised Version of Sir Philip Sid-

Lowna,” BLR, VI (I*), 614-16 [1s97 or 15981.

(1967). 80.

67-69.

(I*), 109-16.

Supplement to Sidney’s Arcudiu,” PBSA, L (1956), 387-92.

ney’s Arcudiu,” SSL, m (1966). 221-29.

D. Other Hitions

Addey, Robert, and Mwin Moseley, eds. Ekubethan Fiction (1953)- Bender. Robert, ed. Five Courtier Poets ofthe English Rmikcarrtc (1968). Bdett. Gerald, ed. Silver Poets ofthe Sixteenth Century (1947). Clemen, Wolfgang, ed. The Defence OfPoesie, Editions Heiddbergensk. xv (1953). Enright, D. J., and Ernst de Chickera, eds. English Critical Texts: 16th Century to 20th Cen-

Guidi, Augusto, ed. Lirica Elizubettiuna, Collana di Letterature Moderne, XU (1960). Hardison, 0. B., Jr., ed. Eirglish Literary Criticisrri: The Reriaissutlre (1963). Hart, Kingsley, ed. htrophcl arid Stella (1959). &plan, Charles, ed. Criticisrrr: Twenty Major Statertietits (1964). Poirier, Michel, ed. and trans. htrophel arid Stella (1957). Po~card;, Savio, ed. La D@su della Poesie (1946). Rajan, Balachandra, and A. G. George, eds. Makers ofLiterory Criticinn (1965) [Defence]. Robinson, Forrest, ed. Apologyfor Poetry (1970). Sausom, Clive, ed. The World ofPoetry: Poeb ard Critics on the Art and Functions Ofpoetry

nrry (1962).

(1959).

THE UNIVERSITY OF C I N C I N N A T I