The Courtly “I” of the English Renaissance:
A Study of Selfhood and Rhetorical Alienation
in Sixteenth Century Verse
Alexandra Caitlin Sweeney
Professor William Morse
English Honors Program
College Honors Program
2009 – 2010
College of the Holy Cross Worcester, Massachusetts
The Thesis of __Alexandra C. Sweeney____________ _____________________________ Entitled ______The Courtly “I” of the English Renaissance: A Study of Selfhood and Rhetorical Alienation in 16th Century Verse_______________________________________ submitted to the Center for Interdisciplinary and Special Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with College Honors at the College of the Holy Cross has been read and approved by the following: __Professor William Morse______________ _______________ __ Advisor Advisor ___Professor Helen Whall____________ _____________________________________ Reader Reader Approved for the College Honors Program: _______________________________ Director of College Honors ____________________ Date
College of the Holy Cross
Department of English Worcester, Massachusetts
The Thesis of __Alexandra C. Sweeney____________ _____________________________ Entitled ______The Courtly “I” of the English Renaissance: A Study of Selfhood and Rhetorical Alienation in 16th Century Verse_______________________________________ submitted to the English Department in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with English Honors, has been read and approved by the following: Advisor______________________________________________________ Reader_______________________________________________________ Approved for the English Honors Program: ________________________________________________________________ Director of English Honors ___________________ Date
ABSTRACT
This study focuses on the ways in which the development of a poet’s personal identity is
manifest in his strategic use of language. In particular, my work examines the relationship between
rhetoric and the formation of a sense of self as it pertains to the poetic and dramatic traditions of
the English Renaissance. I argue that while man fashions himself as a predominantly rhetorical
creature at the dawn of the Renaissance, an aspect of a central serious self is always present, and that
as we move further towards modernity, this equilibrium between homo rhetoricus and homo seriosus
progressively shifts towards the latter By the close of the sixteenth century, we see that the rhetorical
is no longer dominant or even a mode, but rather a linguistic tool employed by predominantly
serious individuals. With a chronological study of Renaissance literature, beginning with Sir Thomas
Wyatt’s lyrical poetry, proceeding to Sir Philip Sidney’s sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella, and
concluding with Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I, this thesis illustrates a startling evolution in the ways
in which man has come to think of himself and his relationships to the greater world through a
strategic use of language.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
§ Acknowledgements 1 § Introduction Renaissance Courtly Rhetoric and the Phenomenon 2 � 7 of Personal Identity § Chapter I Wyatt’s Rhetorical Style and the Potential for 8 � 28 Expression of a Serious Inner Self § Chapter II Sidney’s Exploration of the Tensions Troubling 29 � 56 both Style and Selfhood in Astrophil and Stella § Coda Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I and the Dominance 57 � 64 of the Serious Self in Early Modernity § Bibliography 65� 68
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Professor Bill Morse, for the
invaluable guidance, advice, and knowledge that he has generously shared with me not only this year,
but over the course of my undergraduate career. His true passion for the literature of the English
Renaissance fostered my own interest, inspiring me to embark on this study. Furthermore, I deeply
appreciate his dedication to this project, and am grateful for the many long hours spent discussing
Wyatt’s rhetorical lyrics or debating Sidney’s self-presentation in Astrophil and Stella. Our
conversations always challenged my level of understanding, and continually increased my capacity to
think critically, all the while deepening my desire to learn. It has been an honor and a pleasure to
work with him.
I would also like to like to thank my reader, Professor Helen Whall, for her input and
encouragement throughout the entire process (and then some). She has been a truly generous
mentor throughout my time at Holy Cross. Likewise, special thanks is due to Professor Debra
Gettelman, Director of the English Honors Program, for her unwavering support and enthusiasm,
particularly in the early stages of this project, which are necessarily the most daunting. I also
appreciate the guidance of Professor Matthew Schmalz, Director of the College Honors Program.
Finally, I am eternally grateful for the love and support of my family and friends who have
patiently endured this process with me and provided endless encouragement. I am truly fortunate to
be surrounded by such invested and involved individuals as my parents, Maria and Kevin, who never
once hesitated to spend a moment listening to my questions and concerns, despite the esoteric
nature of my study. Their moral support has been invaluable. And of course, my sincerest thanks to
Steve, who has helped with this project beyond measure by acting as my sounding-board and
personal cheerleader from the start. All of my love and gratitude are due for his daily reassurances.
2
Introduction:
Renaissance Courtly Rhetoric and the Phenomenon of Personal Identity in Wyatt, Sidney, and Shakespeare
We have made thee neither of heaven nor of earth, Neither mortal nor immortal, So that with freedom of choice and with honor, As though the maker and molder of thyself, Thou mayst fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt prefer. - Oration on the Dignity of Man, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 1 One of the most fascinating phenomena to come about during the English Renaissance was
the drastic shift in man’s concept of his personal identity, and the way in which this change
registered in the courtly poetry of the period.2 Broadly speaking, we begin to see at the very dawn of
the era a new fascination with the notion that personal identities can be deliberately produced or
fashioned, a process Stephen Greenblatt calls “the achievement of … a distinctive personality, a
characteristic address to the world, a consistent mode of perceiving and behaving.” 3 This
understanding of man as the maker of his self, when combined with an aristocratic revival of
classical antiquity’s emphasis on the art of rhetoric, resulted in a flourishing of multivalence in
language and character.4 Particularly in the courtly milieu, poets and their royal patrons prized
rehearsed spontaneity, wore an endless array of social masks, and relished the playful multiplicity
available in words, especially as a reflection of the self. Clearly, this rhetorical ideal of life stands in
direct contrast with the worldview of modern Western society, where the serious mode of speech
and identity is considered normal. We value consistency and sincerity over protean changeability or
1 Pico della Mirandola. “Oration on the Dignity of Man.” Trans. Elizabeth Livermore Forbes. The Renaissance Philosophy of Man. ed. Ernst Casser. (Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1948) 225. 2 For a comprehensive discussion of the phenomenon of identity in the Renaissance, good sources to begin with are Catherine Belsey’s The Subject of Tragedy (London: Routledge, 1985); Katherine Eisaman Maus’ Inwardness and the Theater of the English Renaissance. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1985); Stephen Greenblatt. Renaissance Self Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980). 3 Greenblatt, Fashioning 2. 4 For a more comprehensive explanation of the “rhetorical ideal of life,” see Richard Lanham. The Motives of Eloquence. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).
3
duplicity, and appreciate a tight correlation between a person’s words, character, and action.
Recognizing that the Renaissance is largely regarded as the dawn of modernity, we are apt to wonder
exactly when man underwent the transition from a predominantly rhetorical sense of identity to
highly valuing a serious central self. This study aims to explore that very question by paying careful
attention to the ways in which courtly poets’ understanding of selfhood, made manifest in their
strategic use of language, develops over the course of the sixteenth century. 5
Many sophisticated critics, like Stephen Greenblatt, Francis Barker,6 and Jean Howard,7
maintain that writers of the English Renaissance exhibit very little serious interiority in terms of
personal identity. Discussing the poetry of Sir Thomas Wyatt, Greenblatt insists that “there is no
privileged sphere of individuality in Wyatt, set off from linguistic convention, from the shaping
forces of religious and political power.”8 In this same vein, Catherine Belsey even goes so far as to
protest the critical technique of those who make the case for characters’ central identities in
Renaissance drama, believing that anything to this effect is really an imposition of the modern reader
rather than a feature of the Renaissance text.9 Jonathan Goldberg contends that identity in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was not something intrinsic, but rather that “the individual derived
a sense of self largely from external matrices,” and that one’s place in the world was one and the
same with self-definition.10 Though the specifics of their arguments differ, on the whole these
scholars agree that a modern central self is simply not present to any significant degree in the
5 The burgeoning phenomenon of constructing a self through the premeditated and strategic use of language was particularly magnified in the milieu of the royal court, the central locus of the shaping forces of political and social power (Greenblatt, Fashioning, 120). Thus, if we approach the courtly poetry of courtiers and diplomats, such as Sir Thomas Wyatt and Sir Philip Sidney, with the understanding that art does not stand independent of the cultural, social, historic, and political atmosphere which gave rise to it, we are able to explore the ways in which a courtly poet’s finely tuned perception of the manipulative power of words and phrases impacted his development of a central and genuine sense of self. 6 See Francis Baker. The Tremulous Private Body. (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1984). 31, 58. 7 See Jean Howard. “The New Historicism of Renaissance Studies.” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986), 15. 8 Greenblatt, Fashioing, 120. 9 See Catherine Belsey. The Subject of Tragedy: Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama. (New York: Routledge, 1985) 48. 10 See Jonathan Goldberg, James I and the Politics of Literature. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989) 86.
4
Renaissance, and that man is entirely dominated by the rhetorical mode from this age through to the
eighteenth century.
This line of reasoning stems in part from the understanding that self-aware intellectuals, such
as the Italian philosopher and humanist Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, were conceptualizing man’s
identity as utterly malleable, and without a fundamental core as early as the 1480s. In his famous
manifesto, Oration on the Dignity of Man, which became widely known throughout Europe by the
height of the Renaissance, Pico expressed an innovative vision of mankind as “the maker and
molder” of himself, a creature given the power to “fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt
prefer.”11 This significant and novel understanding of personal identity as transformable through
human will is one that truly blossomed with the dawn of the sixteenth century and the rise of
aristocratic court culture. The popularity of ideas such as Pico’s likewise coincided with the
Renaissance revival of the classic art of rhetoric, which also promoted a conception of the self as
flexible and as having indefinite dimensions. Linguistic tutoring of this age taught men not only a
way of speaking, but also a way of being. This quintessential logocentric man of the Renaissance, to
whom Richard Lanham refers as homo rhetoricus, never develops a natural verbal spontaneity. 12 His
use of language is always premeditated; his behavior, performance. His ‘role’ or identity is dictated
by the demands of a given social situation, and he never subscribes to a single value structure or
empirical view of the world. The rhetorical man thinks first of mastering the rules of the current
game, and develops a natural agility in changing orientations. With the perpetual motive of using
words for delight and persuasion, the ideal Renaissance courtier develops a connoisseurship of
language which enables him to manipulate reality while perpetually adopting various roles or
personas that obscure and refract his central self to suit his objectives.
11 Pico della Mirandola, 225. 12 Richard Lanham. The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976) 2.
5
However, I largely disagree with the evidently popular critical assertion that the cultural and
literary dominance of the rhetorical ideal during the Renaissance precluded man from possessing or
expressing a serious dimension of his personal identity. Although writers of the sixteenth century
lacked modern vocabularies for what we call the ‘real’ self or the ‘inner life,’ they still conceived of a
serious dimension of identity and referenced it in their work. Asserting that people of any era can
never be completely serious or completely rhetorical, Richard Lanham notes, “the Western self has from
the very beginning been composed of a shifting and perpetually uneasy combination of homo
rhetoricus and homo seriosus, of a social self and a central self …[and] it is their business to contend for
supremacy.” 13 In this study, I take particular interest in the notion of a tension in the Renaissance
man between this multifaceted rhetorical existence and the emergence of what we may call a ‘central
self’ or irreducible identity, that now tends to characterize our modern mode. In subsequent
chapters of this thesis, I aim to illustrate how this central conflict is expressed through various works
of Renaissance poetry and drama.
On the most fundamental level, this project is a study of the ways in which the development
of a poet’s personal identity is manifest in his strategic use of language. In particular, I explore the
relationship between rhetoric and the formation of a sense of self as it pertains to the poetic and
dramatic traditions of the English Renaissance. Contrary to critics like Greenblatt and Belsey, I argue
that while man fashions himself as a predominantly rhetorical creature at the dawn of the
Renaissance, an aspect of a central serious self is always present, and that as we move further
towards modernity, this equilibrium between homo rhetoricus and homo seriosus progressively shifts
towards the latter. By the close of the sixteenth century, we see that the rhetorical is no longer
dominant or even a mode, but rather a linguistic tool employed by predominantly serious
individuals. With a chronological study of Renaissance literature, beginning with Sir Thomas Wyatt’s
13 Lanham, 6.
6
lyrical poetry, proceeding to Sir Philip Sidney’s sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella, and concluding
with Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I, I will illustrate a startling evolution in the ways in which man has
come to think of himself and his relationships to the greater world through a strategic use of
language.
In the first chapter on Sir Thomas Wyatt (1503 – 1542), a transitional figure between the late
Middle Ages and the early Renaissance, I begin with a discussion of the poet’s historical identity and
the factors which arguably influenced his relationship with language and self-conception. As a
diplomat and courtier of King Henry VIII, Wyatt produced poetry for the court in an environment
where fashioning the right kind of personal identity was a matter of life and death. We see from the
voice in his verse that while he largely rejects such a static molding of identity as foolish and
disadvantageous, Wyatt nevertheless recognizes and understands the concept of a serious central
self. Both the style and content of his poetry point to an immersion in and mastery of the rhetorical
mode. However, often overlooked poems, such as “Each Man Me Telleth,” and “It May be Good,
Like it Who List,” arguably contain a longing for the freedom on the inner self, derailing
Greenblatt’s assumption that Wyatt’s personal identity was bereft of a serious dimension.
Moving chronologically, the second chapter of this study focuses on Sir Philip Sidney’s
renowned sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella (early 1580s), written roughly half a century after
Wyatt’s lyrics, just before the peak of the English Renaissance. Sidney’s innovative poetry cycle
serves as the primary text for this section of the thesis because while it is a meditation on courtly
love on one level, it is also on another level a dramatization of man’s struggle to fashion an identity
in the aristocratic milieu. My argument, supported by sonnets such as 1, 3, 15, 34, 45, and 93, is that
by this point in history, man’s preoccupation with the rhetorical ideal has yielded to a concentration
on the task of mediating the central and social selves. This fixation on man’s need to negotiate
aspects of his identity, as seen through Sidney’s persona of Astrophil, indicates that the serious
7
dimension of selfhood has become a legitimate threat to the traditional supremacy of the rhetorical
mode since the time of Wyatt.
Rounding out this discussion of the development of selfhood and language over the course
of the Renaissance, I conclude my study with a coda on Shakespeare’s popular history play, Henry
IV, Part I (1597). Though the dramatic medium sets this text slightly at odds with the work of Wyatt
and Sidney, it is nevertheless important to this thesis for the way it illustrates man’s conception of
self at the close of the Renaissance. By exploring the character of Prince Hal as a fundamentally
serious individual who only uses the rhetorical as a device, and not a mode of being, we see that only
fifteen years after the work of Sidney, man has already undergone even more of a shift in his
understanding of selfhood. Arguably, the weight and priority that we see given to the central self in
Shakespeare’s work indicates that by the end of the sixteenth century, man had become a
predominantly serious – and an increasingly more modern – creature. Moreover, while many critics
understand Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays as one of the first true attempts at illustrating the
importance of man’s interiority, this study provides the necessary context to understand that such an
interest was really in effect as early as Wyatt and Sidney.
8
Chapter I:
Wyatt�s Rhetorical Style and the Potential for Expression of a Serious Inner Self
Throughout the world, if it were sought, Fair words enough a man shall find. They be good cheap; they cost right naught; Their substance is but only wind. But well to say and so to mean – That sweet accord is seldom seen. -Epigram LXX, Sir Thomas Wyatt 1
Chapter Introduction
As an early poet of the English Renaissance, Sir Thomas Wyatt (1503 – 1542) stands apart
from his contemporaries in having endured as a prominent figure in the tradition of English
literature from the early sixteenth century through to modernity, despite the changing tastes and
trends of the times. Most often celebrated for his revolutionary introduction of the Italian sonnet
form to the English language, Wyatt is a highly rewarding figure to examine in relation to the
fashioning of personal identity through language during this period. Though his verse – regarded as
some of the best written in England during the Henrician Age – has come under the scrutiny of
various mid-twentieth century critics like H. A. Mason, 2 Hallet Smith, 3 and C.S. Lewis 4 for being
drab, barren, and too much an anonymous product of courtly convention, recent attention from
scholars like Kenneth Muir, 5 Stephen Greenblatt, 6 Anne Ferry, 7 and Elizabeth Heale 8 has
collectively reaffirmed the notion that there is a thought-provoking, if flawed, persona to be found
emanating from his work. Described by Patricia Thompson as “in some ways the heir to the English
1 Wyatt. “Throughout the world.” No. LXX in Sir Thomas Wyatt: The Complete Poems, R. A. Rebholz, ed. (London: Penguin) 1978. 101. 2 See H.A. Mason. Humanism and Poetry in the Early Tudor Period. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul) 1959. 3 See Hallet Smith. Elizabethan Poetry. (Boston: Harvard University Press) 1952. 4 See C.S. Lewis. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century. (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 1954. 5 See Kenneth Muir. Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press) 1963. 6 See Stephen Greenblatt. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1980. 7 See Anne Ferry, The Inward Language: Sonnets of Wyatt, Sidney, Shakespeare, Donne. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1983). 8 See Elizabeth Heale. Wyatt, Surrey, & Early Tudor Poetry. (London: Longman) 1998.
9
Middle Ages, [and] … in others the Tudor ‘new man,’” 9 Wyatt has also remained a noteworthy poet
of the early Renaissance as a result of having participated in an important cultural moment at the
dawn of a formative century which would, in later years, host a fundamental transformation in man’s
relation to himself, his word, and the greater world. His poetry is relevant and important to this
study not only for its exemplary form, but also for the way in which it captures certain attitudes and
ideas about self-fashioning and personal modes of identity at this particular point in English history.
Specifically, we will see from the voice in Wyatt’s verse that while he recognizes and understands the
notion of a serious central self, he largely rejects it in favor of self-fashioning in the rhetorical mode.
However, there is a telling flicker in often overlooked poems like “Each Man Me Telleth” and “It
May be Good, Like it Who List” of a longing for the freedom of the inner self.
Historical Context
Before we move on to examine how Wyatt conceives of the “I” in his verse, it is beneficial
to first develop an understanding of the poet’s actual historical identity and the factors which
influenced his relationship with language and self-conception. Around 1503, Sir Thomas Wyatt was
born at Allington Castle near Maidstone in Kent to Sir Henry Wyatt, a well-favored knight who had
risen in King Henry VII’s court as an agent, administrator, and soldier, eventually securing the
honorable position of Keeper of the King’s Jewels. Like his father, Thomas would also come to
serve in the English Royal Court, now of Henry VIII, in this same post after completing his studies
at St. John’s College of Cambridge University, as well as at Oxford. Wyatt’s high degree of learning,
deftness with the flexibility of words, and outstanding fluency in multiple languages seems to stand
behind his perpetual promotion during his time of service to Henry VIII. Starting out at as Clerk of
the King’s Jewels in 1534, Wyatt successively entered a career of diplomacy which included such
posts as High Marshal of the garrison city of Calais, Chief Ewer at the coronation ceremony of
9 Patricia Thompson. Sir Thomas Wyatt and His Background. (Stanford: Stanford University Press) 1964. ix.
10
Anne Boleyn, sheriff of Kent, and foreign ambassador of the King in Italy and Spain. In an elegy
written upon his death in 1542, Wyatt’s close friend and fellow poet, Earl Henry Howard of Surrey,
remembers him for having “A Tonge that served in foraine realms his king; / Whose curtoise talke
to virtue dyd enflame / Each noble harte, a worthy guyde to brynge / Our Englysshe youth, by
travayle unto fame” (ll. 17-20). 10 This patriotic account of unwavering allegiance to crown and realm
echoes Wyatt’s own words in “Tagus, Farewell”: “My Kyng, my Contry, alone for whome I lyve”
(ll.8). 11 Heale notes that the portrait of Wyatt which emerges from Surrey’s verse is “a model of a
certain kind of service to the state: counselor, diplomat and writer, devoted selflessly to the common
weal,” though such service was not always justly repaid. 12
That Wyatt was accused of wrong-doing or arrested by the King nearly as frequently as he
received promotions within the court speaks to the fickleness and instability of the high-stakes
political and social environment, which undoubtedly had an impact on Wyatt’s rhetorical sense of
self. Though Wyatt was “endeared to the king … who was as much pleased with his repartees as his
politics” 13 according to Thomas Warton, the royal court of the Renaissance was nevertheless a
milieu characterized by “tensely conjoined” elements of “playfulness and danger… idealism and
cynicism, aggression and vulnerability, self revelation and hypocrisy,” as Greenblatt reminds us. 14
Though he was a trusted knight and agent, not even Wyatt’s elite status as he who “some work of
Fame / … dayly wrought, to turn to Brytayns gayne” (ll.7-8) could keep him safe from dangerous
accusations of “envy,” “gyle,” and “dysdayne” (ll.4, 24, 2) .15 In 1536, Wyatt was imprisoned in the
Tower of London by Henry VIII as one of Anne Boleyn’s many suspected adulterous lovers, and
10 Surrey. “Wyatt Resteth Here.” English Sixteenth-Century Verse. Richard Sylvester, ed. (New York: W. W. Norton) 1974. 209 – 210. 11 Wyatt. “Tagus, Farewell.” English Sixteenth-Century Verse. 154 – 5. 12 Heale, 20. 13 Thomas Warton, “Warton on Wyatt From The History of English Poetry (1781).” Thomas Wyatt: The Critical Heritage. Patricia Thompson, ed. (London: Routledge) 1974. 40 – 46. 14 Greenblatt, 137. 15 Surrey. “Wyatt Resteth Here.”
11
may have watched her (or her suitors’) execution from his cell (as alluded to in “Who Lyst His
Wealthe and Eas Retayne”). Though the facts of this risky romance between the poet courtier and
Queen are now indistinguishable from legend, it does seem probable from Wyatt’s poems like “If
Waker Care,” Whoso List to Hount” and “What Wourde is that that Chaungeth Not” that he was at
the very least one of Anne’s admirers. Two years later in 1538, Wyatt became ensnared by political
cunning once again as his fellow courtier, foreign ambassador, and competitor Edmund Bonner
accused him of treason. As Heale correctly asserts, “Back-biting and the spying of fellow diplomats
was only one of the dangers attendant on service abroad.” 16 Wyatt cleverly used the patronage of
Thomas Cromwell, the Earl of Essex and Chief Minister of Henry VIII, to get the charges
dismissed, but Bonner revived the accusations once more in 1541 after Cromwell had fallen from
power and been executed. Wyatt was arrested and thrown in the Tower, where he put his “Hand,
that taught what might be saide in rime; / That refte Chaucer the glorye of his wytte,” (ll. 13-14) 17 to
use in composition of a persuasive ‘Defense’ that he hoped would save his life if ever he stood trial.
Ironically, Wyatt was freed on this occasion not by his rhetorical skill, but by another political
alliance; Surry petitioned his cousin Catherine Howard, Henry VIII’s fifth wife, for his friend’s
release. Ostensibly, a large part of navigating such a fickle atmosphere lay in a courtier’s ability to
continually craft and re-craft his self-presentation as well as social connections so that he could
appear to others in the most self-advantageous light possible.
Apart from the political realm, contemporary accounts also show us that Wyatt had a highly
multidimensional persona like that of a true Renaissance Man. Not only a gifted diplomat, Wyatt was
also a prolific literary mind remembered for his contribution of the sonnet, a court entertainer
distinguished by his lyrical repartees, a knight renowned for his valiant foreign service, a sportsman
singled out for his competitive spirit, a successful University scholar, and chivalric lover. As 16 Heale, 15. 17 Surrey. “Wyatt Resteth Here.”
12
Greenblatt remarks, “in … cultural competition, [Sir Thomas Wyatt] proved himself a superior
performer.” 18 In his elegy, Surry echoes this sentiment of Wyatt’s multifaceted character by
describing his masculinity as both brazen and reserved, noting that his friend had “A Vysage, sterne
and mylde,” “A valiaunt Corps, where force and beautye met,” and that he was quintessentially “Of
manhodes shape, where [nature] the mold did loos” (ll. 9, 29, 32).19 Similarly, the sixteenth century
English antiquary John Leland calls Wyatt “the noble mold of cunning Nature” and in a funeral
song, “Nature made Wyatt tall with powerful muscles, / And sinews strong; adding thereto a face /
As beautiful as any. On his brow / Serene, played joyful lights, like starbeams bright” (ll. 14, 4-7).20
From these accounts, we certainly get the impression that Sir Thomas Wyatt was to his
contemporaries everything a man of the Renaissance should be. As we will see in examining Wyatt’s
verse, his well roundedness and mastery of many facets of courtly life can be seen as analogous to
his rhetorical self-conception.
Wyatt’s Recognition of Man’s Serious and Rhetorical Dimensions
Turning now towards Sir Thomas Wyatt’s literary art and the relationship between self-
fashioning and language, we must start out with recognition of the historical fact that sixteenth
century and even early seventeenth century writers simply lacked modern vocabularies for what we
now call the “real self” or “inner life.” As Anne Ferry notes in her critical study The “Inward”
Language, the terms we use to locate aspects of identity – particularly those pertaining to the struggle
between the interior and exterior, central and social, serious and rhetorical selves – were fewer than
today. Similarly, modern phrases which were also available at the dawn of the Renaissance, such as
“individual” and “self,” carried different meanings than they do presently. Ferry notes that the
adjective “individual,” though rarely used during this period, described the quality of being
18 Greenblatt, 120. 19 Surrey. “Wyatt Resteth Here.” 20 Muir, 267.
13
indivisible. 21 According to the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.), this word was not in popular use
with reference to self-identity until nearly half-way through the seventeenth century. 22 Likewise, the
development of the usage of “person” is also telling. While the word has always been used to refer
to the physical entity of the human being, today we tend to think of it in reference to the unique and
elemental self particular to a given individual. However, in the mid-sixteenth century, the most
popular definition of “person,” apart from “a man or woman considered as a physical presence,” 23
was “a role or character assumed in real life… a persona; a semblance or guise.” 24 This development
of denotation over time highlights the difference between our natural modern orientation towards
the central, serious self and the Renaissance proclivity towards the dramatic rhetorical mode.
However, to equate the limited linguistic resources in the English language for articulating
the phenomenon of identity during the early Renaissance with a general lack of awareness regarding
selfhood and individuality is to significantly underestimate the self-conscious nature of the period.
Sir Thomas Wyatt’s courtly poetry, which is often dedicated to the expression of personal conflict in
sense of self, is testament to this fact. Though Wyatt probably had no vocabulary equivalent for
what critics like Richard Lanham in Motives of Eloquence would later come to call “a central,
irreducible self” or a “social, rhetorical self,” the sentiments of tension regarding the “I” in his verse
do, I think, give us reason to believe that the early Renaissance poet was acutely aware of these
modes of personal identity.25 Support for this understanding is readily found in one of Wyatt’s
21 Ferry, 34. 22 “individual, a.3 ”Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. 23 “person, n. 3b ”O.E.D 24 “person, n.1” O.E.D. 25 It should be made clear that in drawing conclusions from his poetry about Wyatt as a Renaissance individual, I do not wish to make the unacceptable mistake of conflating author with speaker of the work, but rather operate from the understanding that “the poem itself is a kind of agent, sent forth to perform the bidding of its master … The poem [may not be] the direct expression of the speaker’s mind … but it is governed by its overarching purpose which is to enhance its creator’s personal position” (Greenblatt, 142).
14
rondeaux well known for illustrating the similarities between disillusionment in love and diplomatic
service, “What Vaileth Trouth?” 26
What vaileth trouth? Or by it to take payn? To strive by stedfastness for to be tayne? To be juste and true, and fle from dowbleness? Sythens all alike, where rueleth craftiness, Rewarded is boeth fals and plain. 5 Sonest he spedeth that moost can fain, True meaning hert is had in disdain. Against deceipte and dowbleness, What vaileth trouth? Deceved is he by crafty trayn 10 That meaneth no gile and doeth remain Within the trapp, withoute redresse, But for to love, lo, suche a maistres, Whose crueltie nothing can refrain, What vaileth trouth? 15
Like many of Wyatt’s poems, this lyric finds its immediate subject matter in the literary and
cultural tradition of courtly love, or l’amor courtois as Gaston Paris originally coined it, which is a
highly stylized system of chivalric devotion on the behalf of a knightly figure for his nearly divine
beloved lady. This ritual of sorts originated with the troubadours of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries in France and is closely related to the notion of fin amor. In the noble institution of courtly
love, the virtuous lover devotes himself to the service of the lady, making himself her subject and
thus modeling the feudal relationships between a vassal and his lord. Accordingly in this lyrical
poem, we see that Wyatt’s speaker is a purportedly sincere lover whose gift of a “true meaning hert”
(7) to his beloved “maistres” (13) has ultimately been rejected, casting him into disillusionment after
the endurance of much “deceipt and dowbleness” (8). Though the source of the speaker’s cynicism
is finally cited in the fourth line of the second stanza as the woman he worships, critics like Jon
Robinson and Stephen Greenblatt value this Wyatt poem for the way in which the delay of her
26 No. 1 (p.129) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology. This poem appears in the Egerton MS and the Wyatt section of Tottel’s Miscellany, meaning that it is highly probable that it belonged to Wyatt. For a useful discussion of authorship and authority of manuscripts, see Rebholz’s Preface to Sir Thomas Wyatt: The Complete Poems.
15
introduction creates an intentional space of ambiguity where we may insert more controversial or
political subjects as the source of the harmful “crafty trayn” (10), or cunning stratagem designed to
victimize the speaker. 27 Indeed, it does reveal a certain unsettling interchangeability between the
public and private spheres of Renaissance life, which we see traces of even in Wyatt’s own
biography.
Yet for our purposes of exploring the development of identity through language, Sir Thomas
Wyatt’s lyric poem “What Vaileth Trouth?” holds even greater resource in its illustration and
evaluation of two primary modes of self-fashioning. Throughout the rondeau, Wyatt sets up a
dichotomy between the identity of the courtly male speaker and that of his beloved which arguably
corresponds to Lanham’s notion of the central serious self, and the social rhetorical self. Lamenting
the apparent purposelessness of “trouth” (1) and “stedfastness” (2) when held up against the
prevailing social values of “gile” (11), “fain[ing]” (6), “craftiness” (4) and “dowbleness” (3), the
speaker actively seeks to align himself with the virtues of stability, honesty, and genuineness. The
reference to his “true meaning hert” (7) directly alludes to a kind of sincerity and interiority that we
associate with the serious self; “hert” or “heart” can mean not only “will or desire,” 28 but also “the
seat of one’s inmost thoughts and secret feelings; one’s inmost being; the depths of the soul; the
soul, the spirit.” 29 Ostensibly, the speaker implies that he has presented his central self, “juste and
true” (3), to the object of his affection, and received not the same honesty in return, but rather
“disdain” (7). In addition to occupying the candid position, the speaker also frames himself
passively, using his posture of subservience as though it were a corollary of the genuine nature of his
central self. In line 7, we see that his heart is not actively given but instead “is had,” and in line 10 we
27 Greenblatt, 143. See also Jon Robinson. “The ‘Honestye’ of Thomas Wyatt’s Court Critique and the Unstable ‘I’ of his Verse.” Court Politics, Culture, and Literature in Scotland and England 1500 – 1540. (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing) 2008. 106. 28 “heart, n.7 ”O.E.D. 29 “heart, n.6a. ”O.E.D.
16
see the same construction as the speaker is acted upon by outside forces: “Deceved is he by crafty
trayn.” The speaker’s submissive position cultivates a sense of blamelessness for having landed
“Within the trapp, withoute redresse” (12), as a result of simply having loved another.
Just as the speaker makes himself out to inhabit the serious end of the identity continuum
through his use of language, the identity of his “maistres” (14) seems to fall on the opposite
rhetorical end. The masculine persona links his love with words such as “dowbleness” (3), “crueltie”
(14), “decipte” (8) and “gile” (12), which negatively invoke the kind of crafty protean mutability
classically associated with the rhetorical stance. Likewise, the fact that the woman has little interest in
the kind of transcendent truth the speaker claims to put forth, and instead simply seeks to
manipulate the current situation for the purpose of securing dominance also points to her rhetorical
self-conception. As Lanham notes, the rhetorical individual “has dwelt not in a single value-structure
but in several… [and] is thus committed to no single construction of the world; much rather, to
prevailing at the game at hand.” 30 While the speaker is concerned with discerning a true reality, we
see that the lady is oriented toward manipulating it in order to gain the upper hand in this power
relation, as she manages to figuratively keep the masculine speaker “Within the trapp, withoute
redresse” (12). Wyatt’s use of the recurring noun “dowbleness” (3, 8), which can be defined as
“being ‘double’ in action or conduct; duplicity, deceitfulness, and treachery,” seems particularly tied
to the rhetorical mode, as it suggests a multiplicity of self or character that stands at odds with the
“stedfastness” (2) of the “True meaning hert” (7).
Furthermore, Wyatt’s conception of the rhetorical mode seems to pertain not just to the
lady, but to a more encompassing general atmosphere. Returning for a moment to Robinson’s and
Greenblatt’s preoccupation with the deferral of the mistress as subject, we see that the speaker’s
highly abstract tone of the broad questions and proverbial statements in the first stanza paints a
30 Lanham, 4.
17
portrait not of a particular individual, but of a complete milieu which the rhetorical “maistres” of
line 14 then comes to embody. She “whose crueltie nothing can refrain” (14) becomes emblematic
of a world where maxims like “he spedeth that moost can fain” (6) (or, “he who can most aptly
profess falsehoods will prosper”) comprise the social and ethical constitution. Wyatt seems to be
putting forth in this courtly rondeau an isolated speaker oriented towards a serious self-conception,
who seeks legitimate connection in a predominantly rhetorical world “where rueleth craftiness” (4)
and “Rewarded is boeth fals and plain” (5); the inevitable outcome of such opposite orientations
towards the world, the self, and language, Wyatt tells us, is bound to end in bitter disillusionment for
he who “meaneth no gile” (11). While he seems to not only recognize but also value what we might
presently call man’s serious “I,” Wyatt’s perpetual and tormenting question, “What vaileth trouth?”
points towards his lamentation of the dominant rhetorical mode, as it leaves no safe place for the
central self to be expressed. This rondeau, in addition to being a piece of light entertainment for a
group of sophisticated courtiers, convinces us that the poet has personal investment in it as it
illustrates Wyatt’s familiarity with the complex tensions of personal identity.
Wyatt’s Preference for the Rhetorical Ideal
While it is now clear from the contents of his verse that Wyatt possessed an intimate
understanding of the two primary modes of self-fashioning – the serious and the rhetorical – we are
instinctively left to wonder about what might drive the poet to create such a delicate and inept, if
morally superior, masculine voice in his work. If putting forth one’s “True meaning hert” (7) only
begets “crueltie” (14), then why would Wyatt allow his speaker to adopt such a vulnerable mode of
self-expression and become victimized? Especially when we consider Greenblatt’s astute assertion
that, “diplomacy … along with courtship seems to have influenced Wyatt’s conception of the
essential function of discourse, which he grasped as a shifting, often devious series of strategic
maneuvers designed to enhance the power of the speaker. … [The] poem itself is a kind of agent,
18
sent forth to perform the bidding of its master,” 31 we feel as though Wyatt must have had a
purposeful agenda in fashioning his male speaker – an extension (to some degree) of his own self –
in such a manner. Robinson, who buys into the innocence and sincerity of the speaker, believes that
this poem can be read as a truthful reflection of the poet’s own life experience:
The repetition of the question, “What vaileth truth?” implies that the speaker really wants to know the worth of honesty in an environment dominated by treachery. This suggests that Wyatt, although an active courtier, is a decent man trying to find an honest and appropriate stance towards his experience. 32 Yet something tells us that a man immersed in such a complex world, surrounded by multivalent
individuals like the “maistres” (14), would resist writing poetry as simple as Robinson seems to
suggest. Tradition provides another, perhaps more plausible, answer, since masculine singleness
contrasted with feminine doubleness was a popular trope of Renaissance literature.33 Though
recalling that Wyatt possessed a connoisseurship of language and took pleasure from exploiting the
resources of words as a courtier, diplomat, ambassador, knight, entertainer, and lover, it seems
counterintuitive that the poem should have only one level of meaning. For such a sophisticated
artist, the black and white dichotomy of man as unwavering and honest and woman as changeable
and treacherous likewise seems too primitive to constitute the full picture.
Returning to the specific language of “What Vaileth Trouth” and paying particular attention
to the aural quality of the words (since Wyatt’s art was most likely intended to be heard out loud
rather than read on the page), we realize that Wyatt has not created as much of a serious and feeble
masculine persona as we first apprehended; the sincere stance of the speaker in this rondeau is not
real, but rather a crafty tool used by a rhetorical individual to dissemble his true intent of self-
promotion and retribution against the lady who rejected his advances. The element of the poem
which alerts us in to the speaker’s rhetorical strategy is the operative word “vaileth” (1,9,15) found in
31 Greenblatt, 142. 32 Robinson, 106. 33 Greenblatt, 141.
19
the refrain. If we listen carefully, we notice that “valieth,” repeated three times throughout, is a
modern homophone of “veileth,” meaning “to cover, enshroud, or screen as or in the manner of a
veil; to serve as a veil to (something).” 34 According to the O.E.D., “veil” was actually a homonym of
“vail” during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 35 and shared that same spelling, though it
retained the meaning of “to conceal.” If we apply this alternate definition to the speaker’s perpetual
cry, “What vaileth trouth?” the phrase morphs from a sad and disillusioned lament of a steadfast
man to a drastically different boastful declaration of a rhetorical master: “What is my purported
stance of truthfulness in this poem allowing me to ‘veil’ or keep hidden?”
The answer to this form of the question is that ‘truth’ hides the speaker’s actual objectives,
which are significantly less than “juste and true” (3). On one level, he laments the rhetorical and
protean mode of self-fashioning in the Renaissance world that makes personal relationships
treacherous; on a more covert level, the male speaker posits this serious self as a façade for his
rhetorical aims of slandering his mistress and promoting himself above her as the ultimate master of
manipulation of perception through language. Throughout the first stanza, Wyatt’s speaker implies
that the relative value of truth is worth nothing in a milieu where “deceipte and dowbleness” (8) are
central. Yet when we see in the second stanza that the speaker’s convenient alignment with all that is
just and genuine allows him to malign without blame the woman who would not accept his amorous
affections, we begin to question our first estimation of truth as useless. It is the speaker’s artful self-
fashioning as “he … / That meaneth no gile” (10-11) that allows him to besmirch the lady as a
wicked female “whose crueltie nothing can refrain” (14), and humbly exalt his own moral
righteousness. As Richard Lanham notes, “The real deceiver is the plain stylist who pretends to put
all his cards on the table. Clarity, then, is a cheat, an illusion. To rhetorical man at least, the world is
34 “veil, v.3 ” O.E.D. 35 See Forms under “veil, v.1 ” O.E.D.
20
not clear, it is made clear. The clear stylist does it with a conjuring trick.” 36 We see that the speaker is
essentially committing the same act of “dowbleness” (3) that he accuses all others of utilizing to
unfairly gain the upper hand. The literal truth may be of no service or profit, but a constructed truth,
like a constructed self, “a manner that denies its own cunning,” 37 ostensibly has immense advantage.
While this crafty technique of “veiling” within Wyatt’s poem allows for some things to be
dissembled, it also puts other aspects of the speaker on prominent display, namely his adroit ability
to manipulate others through the use of rhetoric. By inconspicuously exploiting the multiple
meanings of the word “vaileth” to reveal multiple aspects of himself, the speaker (and by extension,
the poet) garners our admiration for his linguistic skill and deftness in adopting various masks in a
highly convincing manner. Indeed, it seems as though the masculine voice in “What Vaileth Trouth”
is the “he” from line 6 who profits from being the one that “most can fain.” In only fifteen lines, he
manages to equally convince us of two opposing truths: first, that he has a “true meaning hert” that
“strive[s] by stedfastness” (7, 2), and secondly that he is perfectly at home in an atmosphere “where
rueleth craftiness” (4). Though we first assumed that “he” in line 10 who is “deceived… by crafty
trayn” is the speaker, we recognize by the end of the poem that the pronoun more aptly refers to the
reader who ends up caught in Wyatt’s rhetorical “trapp” (12). Naturally, we have to be impressed
with such cleverness. We also have to feel somewhat intimidated by it. Not only has Wyatt showed
us through his masculine persona the instability of what we perceive to be reality, but also that he is
always in a formidable position of power and dominance, even when it appears otherwise.
It is ostensible from this poem that Wyatt not only had a clear conception of the modes of
self-representation that we now call the serious and the rhetorical, but also that he had a particular
relationship with the advantages and perils of each. In “What Vaileth Trouth,” Wyatt proves himself
to be a true master of the rhetorical ideal who simultaneously recognizes the benefit and inherent 36 Lanham, 22. 37 Greenblatt, 143.
21
danger in both the social and central conceptions of self; openly constructing a transparent
rhetorical “I” invites accusations of deception and hypocrisy, while using one’s irreducible interior
self as a means by which to interact with the world leads to hazardous vulnerability and eventual
victimization. The fact that the speaker adopts various personas, and even goes so far as to reduce
the element of the serious self into another guise, to be readily adopted or discarded at his
advantage, points not only to his rhetorical self-fashioning, but also to an innate distrust of anything
purportedly true or genuine. As Greenblatt notes (echoing Lanham), “The single self, the
affirmation of wholeness or stoic apathy or quiet of mind, is a rhetorical construct designed to
enhance the speaker’s power, allay his fear, and disguise his need.” 38
This highly rhetorical style, as seen in “What Vaileth Trouth,” is characteristic of much of
Wyatt’s poetry from his songs to his satires. As an adept master of manipulating words, the early
Renaissance poet uses stylized language like a garment, creating not a single revealing uniform for
himself but a diverse and mutable collection of costumes that permit him to easily switch between
an array of selves, veiling and dissembling his central, irreducible identity nearly to the point of
obscurity. The courtly refrain song “In Eternum,” 39 in which a masculine persona again bemoans
the lady’s fickle rejection of his amorous pursuit, is another well suited example of Wyatt’s
orientation toward the rhetorical mode. As we saw in “What Vaileth Trouth,” the masculine “I” of
this poem likewise exhibits a cultured distrust and dislike of all that which proclaims to be constant
and absolute. As Lanham tells us, “from a rhetorical point of view, transparent language seems
dishonest, false to the world.” 40 The six stanzas, each concluding with the Latin refrain “In
eternum” meaning “unto eternity,” “forever,” or “in eternity,” trace the speaker’s journey of joining
38 Greenblatt, 141. 39 No. 27 (p.150) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology. This poem appears in the Wyatt section of the Devonshire MS and the Egerton MS (though the first part of every line is missing due to the torn leaf), meaning that it is highly probable that it belonged to Wyatt. It is suspected that the lost portion of the poem in the Egerton MS also contained a written attribution. 40 Lanham, 28.
22
love’s “daunse” (9); he begins with a theoretical conception of courtship in his mind, puts it into
practice through wooing, and to his own disillusionment discovers that experiential reality differs
greatly from the idyllic model. Though the speaker’s plain language seems to suggest a serious self at
first glance, we quickly recognize the rhetorical caveats at work in the first stanza:
In eternum I was ons determed For to have lovid and my mynde affirmed That with my herte it shuld be confermed In eternum. (ll.1-4) Literally, the speaker tells us in these lines that he was once resolute to love a lady forever, and that
his mind agreed with his heart’s desire that such a love should actually be established for eternity.
However the contradiction and tension created in the very first line by the placement of the phrase
“In eternum” (1) and the word “ons” (or “once”) (1) which ironically modifies it, clues us in to the
speaker’s disbelief that something as ceaseless and irreducible as the temporal measurement of
“forever” can really exist in the protean world – an indication of his rhetorical orientation.
Furthermore, we see in the telling construction of the line that Wyatt has intentionally caught the “I”
of the speaker between “eternum” (1) and “ons” (1), between the singular and the plural, between
the forces of constancy and changeability, between the serious and the rhetorical mode, dramatizing
within the line the very identity conflict of the Western self. 41
We can also detect the dominance of the speaker’s rhetorical self-construction through the
way that the refrain remains constant throughout the poem, while the significance of the phrase
alters through the material that precedes it. Like the speaker of “What Vaileth Trouth,” the
masculine persona soon discovers in stanza four that his “trowghthe” (ll.13) or faithfulness and
constancy to the lady does not guarantee “assurans to stonde in her grace / In eternum” (ll. 14-5). In
41 This motif of framing the “I” of the speaker between words representing constancy and mutability is a recurring motif in Wyatt which appears again most notably in “It May be Good.” To the extent of my knowledge and research, such a telling construction has gone largely un-analyzed by critics and scholars in relation to the concept of identity and self-fashioning.
23
other words, putting forth one’s serious central self does not necessarily beget reward. The result is
disillusionment and an abrupt, even violent, reversal:
In eternum then from my herte I kest That I had furst determed for the best, Noew in the place another thought doeth rest In eternum. (ll. 21-24) Though Wyatt’s intentionally enigmatic phrases “That [which] I had furst determed for the best”
(22) and “another thought” (23) allow these lines to be interpreted on a number of levels (as is
characteristic of the rhetorical mode), the suddenly contemptuous tone of the refrain leads us to
initially presume that the lady, who “I shulde not se the like [of] / In eternum” (ll. 7-8), is the thing
the speaker casts from his heart. In this sense, the last stanza becomes one of embittered revenge on
behalf of the masculine persona, a thinly veiled attempt perhaps (like the one seen in “What Vaileth
Trouth?”) to strike back at his love for having wronged him. The new “thought” (23) may be either
another woman, or the idea that his lady is now the worst. In this fickle reversal, the speaker
ironically proves himself to be just as inconstant as the woman he brings that charge against. At the
same time, these lines also suggest that the speaker has rid from his mind the principles of stability
and constancy, “which [he] had first determed for the best” (22), affirming that there is no feasible
alternative apart from the protean rhetorical mode of life. If “In eternum” (21) is the object of the
verb phrase “I kest” (21), then “another thought” (23) that now resides in his heart must be the
flexibility of the rhetorical ideal. Yet we see from the highly ironic reappearance of the refrain in the
final line that Wyatt’s speaker can never successfully banish the concept of ‘forever’ from his mind,
as he uses the phrase “in eternum” to accentuate his new commitment to that which is protean and
ephemeral. Patricia Thomson seems to have truly hit the mark with her estimation that this poem
24
invites the reader “to consider again the idea that a conventional Wyatt is far from being, necessarily,
a dull Wyatt.” 42
Wyatt’s original sonnet “Eche Man Me Telleth,” 43 which resembles “What Vaileth Trouth?”
in its thematic preoccupation with constancy and diversity as they pertain to personal identity, is
likewise an example of Wyatt’s rhetorical style and conception of self worthy of our critical
attention. We immediately recognize that the poet is operating within the Italian sonnet tradition,
partly because of the tightly patterned rhyme scheme (ABBAABBA CDDCEE), but more for the
classic manner in which the first eight lines explicate a problem – namely, others’ dislike of the
speaker’s rhetorical instability– which the remaining six lines seek to resolve:
Eche man me telleth I chaunge moost my devise, And on my faith me thinck it goode reason To chaunge propose like after the season, For in every cas to kepe still oon gyse Ys mytt for theim that would be taken wyse, 5 And I ame not of suche manner condition, But treated after a dyvers fashion, And thereupon my dyvernes doeth rise. But you that blame this dyvernes moost, Chaunge you no more but still after oon rate 10 Trete ye me well, and kepe ye in the same state; And while with me doeth dwell this weried goost, My wordes nor I shall not be variable, But always oon, your owne boeth ferme and stable.
Before we go on to explore the ways in which the rhetorical mode operates in this particular poem,
it’s beneficial to first note the abundance of further evidence found here that Wyatt was intimately
familiar with the various modes of personal identity and self conception, though terms such as
“rhetorical ideal” and “serious self” were not at his disposal. In the very first line of the octave, the
42 Thompson, 135. 43 No. 4 (p. 131-132) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology. This poem appears in the Egerton MS with the attribution of “Tho” in the margin, as well as in the Wyatt section of Tottel’s Miscellany and the Arundel-Harington MS, meaning that we are as near certain as possible that it belonged to Wyatt. It is also interesting to note that unlike many of Wyatt’s sonnets which were translations of Petrarch, “Eche Man Me Telleth” appears to be a completely original composition. This fact seems to somewhat add authenticity to the claims and the emotions of the speaker.
25
speaker confronts numerous personal accusations from his peers brought against his exceedingly
protean nature as he tells us, “Eche man me telleth I chaunge moost my devise” (1). According to
the O.E.D., “devise” is the sixteenth century form of the noun “device,” which in this context most
nearly means, “will or desire as expressed or conveyed to another.” 44 What do we call the rhetorical
mode, if not the perpetual mutability of one’s outwardly expressed disposition? Interestingly, we see
that the words “propose” (or “purpose”) of line 3, meaning “an intention or aim,” 45 and “gyse”
(modernly, “guise”) in line 4 referring to “the manner of carrying oneself” 46 are used as variant
synonyms of “devise” (1), all of which pertain in some sense to one’s constructed identity. The
understanding that man has the power to change his “devise,” or expression of self used to interact
with the greater world, points directly to Wyatt’s awareness of being able to shape and manipulate
personal identity. In this same vein, the principle dichotomy Wyatt identifies through his speaker
between “chaung[ing] propose like after the season” (3) and “in every cas … ke[eping] still oon
gyse” (4) seems to be fundamentally related to the understanding, as developed in part by Richard
Lanham, that all humans possess in some combination a multifaceted rhetorical self, as well as a
central and irreducible serious self. The speaker’s open admission at the end of the octave that he is
marked by a “dyvernes” (7) (“diverseness”) of character suggests that the speaker – and most likely
Wyatt by extension – leans heavily towards the rhetorical end of the self-fashioning scale.
Examining now the prominently rhetorical stance of Wyatt’s speaker in this sonnet, we see
that he proceeds to defend himself against “Eche man” (1) in lines 3 through 5 by retorting that
changeability is the current fashionable trend (a fact corroborated by Wyatt’s historical biography),
and that varying one’s aim “like after the season” (3) is actually sound reasoning; only those that
would have others take them for wise men maintain the same disposition in all circumstances. This
44 “device, n. 3b” O.E.D. 45 “propose, n. 2” O.E.D. 46 “guise, n. 3” O.E.D.
26
pattern of the speaker being separated from the popular majority is a motif well worn in Wyatt’s
verse, appearing in both “What Vaileth Trouth?” and “In Eternum,” though typically the speaker is
poised as the isolated serious self who stands out in a predominantly rhetorical world. In this case,
we see a masculine persona openly owning his rhetorical self-construction set against “Eche man”
(1) who is purportedly serious. Yet it seems more likely than not that these other selves making the
accusations against the protean speaker are merely utilizing the central self as a rhetorical tool to
disguise their true aims, a crafty technique we have seen Wyatt himself employ from time to time.
When Wyatt’s speaker tells us in line 6 that he is not “of [a constant] manner condition,”
that he is not of such a character to have others think he is wise and would rather be thought a fool
for his changeability, we feel the full effect of his mocking tone and rhetorical self-construction.
Recognizing that the propositions in lines 2 through 5 are actually variants of the well known
proverbs of Wyatt’s day – “A wise man need not blush to change his purpose” and “A wise man
changes his mind, a fool never” 47 – we see that Wyatt is criticizing popularly held beliefs about the
relative value of genuine constancy. Similar to the masculine speaker in the lyric “In Eternum,”
Wyatt’s persona seems to entirely dismiss the merit of reliability and of a central self in the first eight
lines. With the reasoning that like begets like, the poet notes that his changeability is merely a
response to having been “treated [by others] after a dyvers fashion” (7), which recalls Lanham’s
assertion that “the lowest common denominator of [the rhetorical man’s] life is a social situation.” 48
Yet we see that this statement also functions as a crafty rhetorical twist, which allows Wyatt’s
speaker to cleverly shift the blame for his protean nature onto the rest of society and those who
attack him. The speaker’s defense, we see, also functions as an offensive, putting him once again in
the dominant position. Ostensibly, it is this kind of overwhelming prevalence of the rhetorical mode
in the poet’s verse that impels Stephen Greenblatt to brazenly claim “that there is no privileged 47 Rebholz, 358. 48 Lanham, 4.
27
sphere of individuality in Wyatt, set off from linguistic convention, from social pressure, from the
shaping forces of religious and political power,” 49 that the poet (and thus his speaker) possesses no
central self, though I consider evidence in support of the contrary to be readily found, among other
verses, in the very sestet of this sonnet.
Wyatt’s Acknowledgement of the Potential for a Serious Self
Though it is carefully concealed by the multifaceted persona of the rhetorical man, Wyatt
does, in fact, like all Western individuals, possess a central self. He not only acknowledges the
existence of a serious dimension to man’s identity throughout his poetry as we have seen, but then
legitimately entertains the possibility of its dominance for a few select moments in his verse. We may
start to uncover this aspect of Wyatt’s fashioned identity in part by close reading the last six lines of
“Eche Man Me Telleth.” With the anticipated volta at the beginning of line 9 in this sonnet, we see
something more radical and drastic than just the usual transition from proposition to resolution.
Starting with an imperative command directed at the accusers, “But you that blame this dyvernes
moost, / Chaunge you no more, but still after oon rate” (9), the speaker’s tone shifts from witty
bantering to terse candidness as he proposes a resolution to others’ dislike of his protean and
rhetorical nature. Without any palpable ulterior motive at work, the speaker proposes that the
greater milieu must become constant themselves before they can expect the same irreducibility of
character in return from him. Wyatt’s speaker postulates that in order for words and selves to not
“be variable” (13), there must be a mutual commitment between parties to be “ferme and stable”
(14) in identity. Here we see the classic association between vulnerability and a central self that
appears in Wyatt’s other poems, though in a more serious and honest tone than ever before.
Characteristically, when Wyatt represents the serious self in his courtly poetry, it is used as a
false rhetorical construct designed to enhance the power of the speaker, or it is dismissed out of
49 Greenblatt, 120.
28
hand for the dangerous exposure and susceptibility that it engenders in a world where everything
and everyone is oriented towards the rhetorical mode of life; yet this particular instance speaks of
legitimate hope for a different mode with which to relate man to his own word and other men. In a
world where people and their words are never just one thing, all relationships between individuals
are necessarily competitive. Greenblatt correctly observes that in the Renaissance, power dynamics
were envisioned so that, “the gain of one party [was] inevitably the loss of the other … love is like
the rupture of a treaty and a consequent loss of power … even an erotic triumph seems most often
to be achieved at the expense of one or the other of the lovers.” 50 This is perhaps best captured by
Wyatt’s apt line from a translation of one of Petrarch’s sonnets, “I love an othre, and thus I hate my
self” (ll. 11), 51 which emphasizes devotion to another as a betrayal of the self, because it undermines
the perpetual need for supremacy. With this cultural standard in mind, we see just how extreme and
utterly novel the proposition of self-fashioning found in the sestet of “Eche Man Me Telleth” truly
is. Wyatt’s speaker seems to suggest in earnest that he could be a completely different kind of
person, his “words” and his “I” no longer “variable” (that is to say, rhetorical) but “always oon” (or
serious) (13-14), if others would commit to such an ideal of life as well.
It is safe to say that Wyatt never experienced this sort of cultural orientation towards the
inner self over the rhetorical self during his lifetime, but he certainly seems to anticipate in this poem
the movement towards more frequent expression of a central identity which will become dominant
by the end of the period. Though Heale characterizes “Eche Man Me Telleth” as a “typical” Wyatt
sonnet, 52 this study has cleared substantial room for disagreement. It should in fact be considered
among the most unusual and significant of Wyatt’s works for the way in which it reveals important
insight about Wyatt’s sense of identity, and the nature of self-fashioning at this moment in history.
50 Greenblatt, 141. 51 “I Fynde No Peace and All My Warr is Done.” No. 9 (p. 135) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology. 52 Heale, 100.
29
Chapter II:
Sidney�s Exploration of the Tensions Troubling both Style and Selfhood in Astrophil and Stella
This you hear is not my tongue, Which once said what I conceived For it was of use bereaved, With a cruel answer stung. No, though tongue to roof be cleaved Fearing lest he chastised be, Heart and soul do sing in me. -Certain Sonnets, No. VII – Sir Philip Sidney 1
Chapter Introduction
As one of the most celebrated and iconic figures of the English Renaissance in both his own
age and ours, the Elizabethan poet-courtier Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) is presently remembered
most for his innovative and ground-breaking contributions to the then-burgeoning tradition of
English literature. As Donald Stump notes, “Other writers of the age may have been greater, but
none did more to inspire the movement in literature and the arts that we call the ‘Elizabethan
Renaissance.’” 2Among his many influential works are An Apology for Poetry (1579), a critical treatise
that seeks to assimilate the teachings of Aristotle’s Poetics with neo-platonic thought, remaining
integral to modern literary theory; The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia (1580), a highly ambitious
pastoral narrative in prose that revived and popularized the genre of Hellenistic romance; and last
but hardly least, the paradigmatic sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella (1581-3), an innovative set of
108 poems and 11 songs, which was the first of its kind in adapting the Italian sonnet form to the
English language. Sidney had no previous models in vernacular English to use as a blueprint for his
sonnet sequence, making Astrophil and Stella a truly comprehensive marvel and a revolutionary
1 Sidney. “O fair, O sweet, when I do look on thee.” No. VII in The Oxford Authors:: Sir Philip Sidney. Katherine Duncan Jones, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). pp. 17. 2 Donald Stump. “History of Sidney Scholarship.” Sir Philip Sidney: World Bibliography. 1 Jan 2005. Saint Louis University, Web. 3 Mar 2010. <http://bibs.slu.edu/sidney/history.html>
30
benchmark in the English literary tradition.3 Through this work, Sidney is also responsible for having
incited the Elizabethan fascination with sonnet cycles, a trend which would continue well through
the end of the century, and pave the way for works by Spenser, Drayton, Greville, Shakespeare, and
Wroth, among others.
Frequently regarded as the greatest of all the poet-courtier’s achievements, Sidney’s sequence
Astrophil and Stella is of particular interest to this study not only for its strikingly original reinvention
of Petrarchanism or its avant-garde influence, but also for the artful ways in which it dramatizes the
struggles of mans interiority and the challenges of fashioning one’s identity in the courtly milieu of
the English Renaissance. On the most literal level, the sequence tells a classically Petrarchan story of
the trials and tribulations of unrequited love from the first-person perspective of a young poet,
Astrophil (“star-lover” in Greek), who translates into verse his painful desire for his beloved lady,
Stella (Latin for “star”). The sequence even has a loose courtly love narrative binding the sonnets as
a whole: 4 in the early poems, Astrophil hopelessly loves Stella and professes his adoration; in time
she grants him her heart with the stipulations that his love remains virtuous, Platonic, and distanced;
Astrophil struggles with Stella’s righteous demands and eventually steals a kiss; this transgression,
among others, leads to a period of Astrophil’s separation from Stella; finally the sequence concludes
with sonnets that give voice to Astrophil’s desire for respite from the torment of love. Captivated by
this conventional yet seemingly sincere courtly love element, many scholars of the nineteenth and
even the twentieth century, such as J. A. Symonds,5 Mona Wilson,6 and Patrick Cruttwell, 7 devoted
their analytical energies to decoding the sequence as an autobiographical revelation of Sidney’s
historical love for Lady Penelope Rich. Indeed, there are quite a few intentionally tantalizing puns, 3 See Anne Ferry. The “Inward” Language: Sonnets of Wyatt, Sidney, Shakespeare, Donne. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) pp. 24. 4 See Jack Stillinger. “The Biographical Problem of Astrophil and Stella.” Essential Articles: Sir Philip Sidney (Hamden: Archon Books, 1986) pp. 167-191. 5 See J.A. Symonds. English Men of Letters: Sir Philip Sidney. (London: Macmillan & Co., 1902). 6 See Mona Wilson. Sir Philip Sidney. (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1950). 7 See Patrick Cruttwell. The English Sonnet. (London: Longmans, 1966).
31
riddles, and half-allusions sprinkled throughout the sequence – such as the inclusion of Sidney’s
Christian name (Phil) in the name of his crafted persona (Astrophil) – that suggest potential parallels
between Sidney’s own life and his literary fiction.8
Yet Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella, a rich and highly complex literary tapestry woven together
from many themes, postures, and tones, may also be interpreted in a more conceptual and
philosophical manner. Using New Criticism to elucidate the sequence, we discover that Sidney did
not merely aim to reproduce the Petrarchan model of unrequited courtly love, but to overhaul the
paradigm, and subversively redirect the focus away from worship of the beautiful lady. Instead,
Sidney places the masculine poet-lover at the center of the verse, as modern critic David Kalstone
acknowledges: “Without dethroning Stella, Sidney’s sonnets shift a great deal of the energy and
poetic attention to Astrophil.” 9 In light of the undeniable centrality of the male persona, many
modern critics, like Marotti,10 Ferry,11 Kalstone, 12 Young,13 Berry, 14 and Rudenstine, 15 have
entertained the notion that the romantic element of Astrophil and Stella is not the direct subject of the
cycle, but rather a convenient vehicle for addressing larger theoretical issues in the realms of politics,
identity, interiority, and artistic style. Indeed, C.S. Lewis even likens Astrophil and Stella to a
“prolonged lyrical meditation.”16 Though their specific arguments vary in nature, most of these
scholars essentially agree with Marotti’s assertion that “Lady Rich was [in context] a symbolic figure
8 Some poems of interest in this line of thought are No. 24, 35, and 37 in Astrophil and Stella. For an interesting evaluation of the connections between Sidney and Astrophil (and likewise Lady Rich and Stella), see “The Biographical Problem of Astrophil and Stella” by Jack Stillinger in Essential Articles: Sir Philip Sidney. Arthur Kinney, ed. (Hamden: Archon Books, 1986) pp. 167-191. 9 David Kalstone. Sidney’s Poetry: Contexts and Interpretations. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1965) 130. 10 See Arthur F. Marotti. “Love is not Love: Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences and the Social Order.” (ELH. Vol. 49, No. 2 (Summer, 1982)), 396– 428. 11 See Anne Ferry. The “Inward” Language: Sonnets of Wyatt, Sidney, Shakespeare, Donne. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). 12 See David Kalstone. Sidney’s Poetry: Contexts and Interpretations. 13 See Richard B. Young. “English Petrarke: A Study of Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella.” Three Studies in the Renaissance: Sidney, Jonson, Milton. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958). 5–88. 14 See Edward Berry. The Making of Sir Philip Sidney. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998). 15 See Neil L. Rudenstine. Sidney’s Poetic Development. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967). 16 C.S. Lewis, Literature in the Sixteenth Century. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973) 104.
32
for Sidney … [and] her fictionalization as Stella puts her at the center of a constellation of issues
larger than those involved in a private ‘tragic-comedy’ of love.” 17 Astrophil and Stella ultimately serves
as “an imaginative and social retreat” for the poet. 18 With this critical foundation, our discussion in
this chapter will focus on the way in which each sonnet in the cycle can be said to capture, in very
subtle and delicate ways, certain ideas about modes of personal identity and selfhood which are
particular to this point in English history. Specifically, we will see that the sequence provides Sidney
with an imaginative space where he can articulate his struggles with the intractability of language,
and also with tensions found between the serious and rhetorical modes of literary and self
expression, making the sequence not only about conventional courtly love, but also a study in
expressing a complex personality.
Historical Context
Before we move on to examine how Sidney conceives of the “I” in his verse, it will benefit
us to first understand the poet’s actual historical identity and the major factors which many have
impacted his relationship with language and self-fashioning, for as critic Edward Berry notes, “The
crisis that precipitated Sidney’s literary self-explorations [most likely] arose out of the sense of
identity he developed as a young man.” 19 On November 30th, 1554, Sir Philip Sidney was born at
Penshurst Place to a politically prominent family of Kent. Like his predecessor Sir Thomas Wyatt,
Sir Philip Sidney was intimately linked with the Royal Court of England from a young age, and was
perpetually groomed to serve the state throughout his adolescence. His father, Sir Henry Sidney
(1529-1586), was a prominent courtier and politician who enjoyed the favor of the crown under
King Henry VIII, Edward VI, and finally Queen Elizabeth I. In this latter reign, he was appointed to
the esteemed position of Lord Deputy Governor of Ireland. Sidney’s mother, Mary Dudley, was
17 Marotti, 400. 18 Marotti, 406. 19 Berry, 8.
33
servant to the Queen and daughter of the 1st Duke of Northumberland. Included among Sidney’s
uncles were the highly favored 1st Earl of Leicester and the wealthy 3rd Earl of Warwick. Like much
of his family, Sidney would also come to serve in the English Royal Court of Queen Elizabeth, but
only after receiving a comprehensive humanist education first at the Shrewsbury School, later at
Christ Church College of Oxford University, and finally at the Inns of Court in London.
With this prominent familial background and a first rate education from England’s finest
institutions, Sidney’s future as a successful courtier was more than promising. In May of 1575, after
his Grand Tour of the continent for the purpose of mastering foreign languages, Sidney returned to
England and devoted himself to becoming the ideal courtier and paradigmatic “Renaissance Man.”
Far from ending his intellectual pursuits, Sidney studied ‘chemistry’ under John Dee, worked to
adapt classical metrics to English poetry with Edward Dyer, and discussed matters of art and verse
with Gabriel Harvey and Edmund Spenser. For the next three years, Sidney also played a very public
role in Elizabethan high society as an organizer and participant in royal pastimes. For the
amusement of the Queen, Sidney produced playlets, tiltyard appearances, and pastoral shows during
courtly galas. Between 1575 and 1579, the promising courtier with “great expectations” 20 also
sought military employment abroad, and involved himself in his father’s political duties in Ireland.
Sidney’s most notable success, however, was a trip to Italy to aid the Holy Roman Emperor
Rudolph II on behalf of the Queen in 1577, an excursion which he was certain would win him the
favor of Elizabeth. As a rising political player, court entertainer, scholar, sportsman, and diplomat,
Sir Philip Sidney was, as Katherine Duncan-Jones notes, “in the eyes of some, almost a crown
prince.” 21 This estimation confirms our conception of Sidney during these years as a bona fide
master of the rhetorical role of Elizabethan courtier.
20 Sidney. Astrophil and Stella, No. 21 ll. 8. 21 Duncan-Jones, xi.
34
It follows without surprise, then, that Sidney’s consummate navigation of the highly
theatrical world of the Elizabethan court is reflected in the literature he produced during this period.
Rather than engaging in literary self-exploration, we see that Sidney was preoccupied by both acting
and writing in the role of a courtier. In 1577, he composed a treatise, titled A Discourse of Irish Affairs,
in which he used his talent with words and language to artfully defend his father Henry Sidney’s
foreign policies. In a similar manner in 1578, Sidney put together The Lady of May as entertainment
for Elizabeth at Wanstead. Using the genre of a pastoral romance in an allegorical manner, Sidney
designed a fictional plot of the Queen choosing among suitors to persuade her Royal Majesty to
adop a new attitude toward her political relationships. As Berry notes, “Sidney’s development of
personas in this period is rhetorical rather than exploratory and offers neither the introspective
quality nor the literary energy of later self-representations.”22 Ostensibly, this kind of rhetorical
composition entailed the kind of skilled self-endorsement advocated by authorities of courtly
conduct, like Puttenham in The Art of English Poesie and Castiglione in The Book of the Courtier.
Yet in spite of his apparent mastery of this courtly role, Sidney seems to have felt an inner
tension between the artificial and studied air demanded by his social position and a desperate need
to express a serious dimension of his identity. This internal struggle manifested itself as early as
1579, the year in which Sidney both initiated a quarrel with the Earl of Oxford on the tennis court at
Whitehall, and wrote a dangerously sincere letter to the Queen regarding her intentions to marry the
Duke of Anjou. In the first case, Sidney flatly refused to submit to his superior, the Earl of Oxford,
in a disagreement, and subsequently challenged him to a duel – a forbidden activity in the court. He
was later reprimanded by the Queen, who insisted (according to Fulke Greville’s account) that he
respect ‘the difference in degree between Earls and Gentlemen.’ Dissatisfied with this imposition of
rhetorical behavior, Sidney disobeyed Elizabeth and asserted that “although Oxford was a ‘great
22 Berry, 50.
35
Lord,’ he was no ‘Lord over him.’”23 Later that year, Sidney penned a lengthy letter to the Queen
about the prospect of her marriage, blatantly arguing against the proposed match. While the letter
opens with traditional complimentary embellishments, Sidney soon abandons the rhetorical ideal in
favor of treacherous honesty, leaving little to no fictional distance between himself and his
argument: “I will, in simple and direct terms (as hoping they shall only come to your merciful eyes),
set down the overflowing of my mind in this most important matter, importing, as I think, the
continuance of your safety…”24 The surprising bluntness of this presumptuous letter, referred to by
Berry as yet another “fine example of Sidney’s apparent inability to submerge himself in the
rhetorical conventions of the courtier,” 25 likely figured into Sidney’s decision to take a leave of
absence from court in the following year. Though he would eventually return, Sidney was
forevermore underemployed and poorly remunerated by the Queen for a man of his birth and
intelligence. Sidney’s near certain hopes of becoming a prominent courtier were permanently
disabled.
Without a real future at the court, and bereft of an outlet for his abounding wit, it makes
sense that from this point forward Sidney poured most of his energies into writing. Yet the works
produced after his outbursts represent a very different kind of endeavor from Sidney’s initial forays
in literature, which were designed to be highly political and persuasive. The Countess of Pembroke’s
Arcadia, An Apology for Poetry, and Astrophil and Stella, which were all composed after Sidney’s leave of
absence from the Royal Court, have a distinctly imaginative and self-reflexive quality that the earlier
and less mature works clearly lack. Moreover, as we shall see in our discussion of selfhood and
identity in Astrophil and Stella, much of the restlessness and tension between serious expression and
the rhetorical mode of the ideal courtier that Sidney experienced firsthand seems to be artistically
23 Berry, 55. 24 Sidney. “Letter to Queen Elizabeth, 1580.” 289. 25 Berry, 56.
36
explored in his poetry. His historical struggles with self-definition almost certainly provided the poet
with a wealth of material to draw on for his craft. After all, Sidney himself asserts in his Apology for
Poetry that “the works of nature [are the] principle object” of all “art delivered to mankind,”26
insinuating that even the most imaginative and finely wrought verse originates from the experiential
reality of the poet.
Sidney’s Recognition of the Serious and Rhetorical Modes through the Motif of Style in Astrophil and Stella
Let us turn now to the text of Astrophil and Stella, and begin our discussion by exploring the
ways in which Sidney illustrates his familiarity with the various aspects of the self. While appreciating
the innovative, protean, and remarkably witty nature of Sir Philip Sidney’s comprehensive sonnet
sequence, even the most perceptive of critical readers is apt to overlook the unique way in which
Astrophil and Stella addresses the tension between the serious and rhetorical dimensions of the
western self. Indeed, we are hard pressed to find in Sidney’s sonnets any of the explicit nods to the
cleverly labeled dichotomies of “doublness” and the “true meaning heart,” 27 or of “chaung[ing]
propose like after the season” and “ke[eping] still oon gyse,” 28 which are woven throughout his
predecessor Sir Thomas Wyatt’s verse. As we saw in Chapter One, some of Wyatt’s work, such as
“What Vaileth Trouth?” and “Eche Man Me Telleth,” clearly seek their subject matter in man’s
modes of personal identity and self-conception in relation to postures of sincerity and feigning.
While much of Sidney’s verse also plays with the notion of selfhood as fashioned by the dynamics of
courtly and erotic relationships, his manner of speaking about the uneasy combination of man’s
central and social self is on the whole different from Wyatt’s explicit framework. Arguably more
preoccupied with the experience of the poet as artist, and self-fashioning through language, Sidney
26 Sidney, “An Apology for Poetry.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Vincent B. Leitch, ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2001) 330. 27 Wyatt, “What Vaileth Trouth?” No. 1 (p.129) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology. 28 Wyatt, “Eche Man Me Telleth.” No. 4 (p. 131-132) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology.
37
(through his poet-lover Astrophil) uses the concept of poetic style as an avenue through which to
reference the serious and rhetorical dimensions of the self, and illustrate his intimate familiarity with
man’s perpetual task of mediating the two modes.
As I have implicitly affirmed in earlier discussion, verbal or literary style – man’s mode of
self expression through language – can be understood as having a direct relationship with shaping
and projecting a sense of identity. If we return for a moment to Richard Lanham’s argument about
the social and central selves in The Motives of Eloquence, we find that his notion of developing and
articulating selfhood actually originates from his discussion of verbal and literary style in the West.
He reminds us that “expression sustains the self,” 29 and that the serious and rhetorical not only
belong to modes of being, but ultimately correspond to man’s linguistic articulation. Of course, the
analogy between man’s identity and his style is hardly limited to a concept pioneered by Lanham in
the twenty-first century. Recognition of this relationship between linguistic manner and projection
of identity is found as far back as the classical period among philosophers, orators, and literary
figures such as Plato and Ovid. Likewise, appreciation of this connection between mode of
expression and selfhood is referenced frequently throughout early modernity, as Robert Burton
asserts in his 1621 edition of The Anatomy of Melancholy, “It is most true, stylus virum arguit – our style
bewrayes us.”
In light of this tradition, it comes as no surprise that Sidney too may be counted among
those captivated by this relationship between linguistic style and the self. As one of the most
sophisticated connoisseurs of poetic form and vernacular English to flourish during the Renaissance,
there is little doubt that Sir Philip Sidney was greatly preoccupied with style and, by implicit
extension, the negotiation of personal identity. Sherod M. Cooper Jr. affirms this notion for us in his
work, The Sonnets of Astrophil and Stella:
29 Lanham, 28.
38
Sir Philip Sidney makes frequent references in his works to the problems of style, not only those inherent in poetry and other artistic means of expression, but also in such mundane activities, such as the way a woman arranges jewels in her hair. He recognizes that matters of style are involved in even the most prosaic activities that affect nature as well as the creative arts.30 In this same vein, Sidney’s critical treatise, An Apology for Poetry, written between 1579 and 1581, can
be seen as a testament to the courtier-poet’s pressing interest in issues surrounding style as a
mediation between the truths innate to man, as part of nature, and the multifaceted possibilities of
art. Although Sidney never ultimately works out a formal statement of aesthetic or stylistic theory, he
does explore in the Apology how we might define ‘good’ style, and takes care to point out the
inherent tensions between reality and the world contrived through poetic making. We see these same
concerns about the poet’s task of using literary style to navigate the space between life and art
reflected in the subject matter of Astrophil and Stella. Not simply focused on the romantic
relationship of love, the poet-lover of Sidney’s sonnet sequence is often concerned with literary style
and the way in which feelings belonging to the private self cannot be adequately conveyed to others
through the artful crafting of language. Sonnet 1 is a masterful meditation on writing love poetry, as
well as literary technique, but it holds even greater importance in its illustration and evaluation of
two primary styles of self-fashioning: the serious, and the rhetorical:
Loving in truth, and faine in verse my love to show, That she (deare she) might take some pleasure of my paine: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pitie winne, and pitie grace obtaine, I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe, Studying inventions fine, her wits to entertaine: Oft turning others leaves, to see if thence would flow Some fresh and fruitfull showers upon my sunne-burn’d braine. But words came halting forth, wanting Inventions stay, Invention Natures child, fled step-dame Studies blowes, 10 And others feete still seem’d but strangers in my way. Thus great with child to speake, and helplesse in my throwes, Biting my trewand pen, beating my selfe for spite,
30 Sherod M. Cooper, Jr. The Sonnets of Astrophil and Stella (The Hague: Mouton, 1968)11.
39
Foole, said my Muse to me, looke in thy heart and write. 31
In addition to elucidating on the most literal level Astrophil’s reason for writing love poems
to Stella, Sonnet 1 also uses the language and terms of poetic style more abstractly to speak about
man’s identity as fashioned through language, and the difficulties posed by this process. Closely
analyzing the stylistic dichotomy established by Sidney through Astrophil in this first sonnet, we are
able to see the poet’s intimate familiarity and knowledge of the tensions between the serious and
rhetorical mode that comprise the Western self. The first line of Sonnet 1, “Loving in truth, and
faine in verse my love to show,” opens Astrophil and Stella with the witty exposure of a fundamental
dichotomy between man’s act or state of “Loving in truth” (1) and his subsequent eagerness “to
show” his emotive experience “in verse” (1). Arguably, these two modes of being correspond to the
concepts of the central serious self and the social rhetorical self. Anne Ferry tells us,
“Loving in truth and faine in verse my love to show” opens the first poem in the first English sonnet sequence, and with that line changes poetry in our language. This sonnet is the earliest poem in English to make its central concern the relation between what may be felt “in truth” and what may show “in verse” … explor[ing] and complicat[ing] the ways in which new uses of language portray inward experience.32 In the first part of the line, the poet-speaker evokes a certain a priori sense of private inwardness with
the phrase “Loving” (1), which is the counterpart to the act of show[ing]” (1), and qualified by the
phrase, “in truth” (1). While able to function as a prepositional intensifier, “in truth” (1) is placed
after “Loving” (1), suggesting the alternate meaning of “truly, verily, really, or indeed,”33 all of which
carry overtones of irreducible sincerity. Strongly echoing Wyatt’s “true meaning hert,”34 we see that
the phrase “Loving in truth” (1) – referring either to man’s quality of being earnestly devoted or his
genuine act of adoration – is intimately related to the serious style, characteristic of man’s central
31 The text of Astrophil and Stella presented here is based on Richard Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse. This anthology uses the 1598 edition of the Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia … with sundry new additions. 32 Ferry, 128. 33 “truth, n.14 a” O.E.D. 34 Wyatt, “What Vaileth Trouth?”
40
self. The speaker’s willingness to identify this genuine and uncrafted aspect of his nature points
toward a familiarity with, and understanding of, the honest and straight-forward aspect of man’s
character.
The other half of the first line then completes the dichotomy with the reference in stylistic
terms to man’s zeal for “show[ing]” love “in verse” (1), which arguably corresponds to the rhetorical
mode of language and self. The verb “to show” (1), meaning “to bring forward or display in order
that it may be looked at,” 35 correlates with the outward, social dimension of the rhetorical style.
Interestingly, we see that unlike “Loving” (1), to show” (1) is not connected to any words imparting
a sense of truthfulness or sincerity. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case; while the adjective
“fain” (1) in the second half of the first line means “gladly, willingly, with pleasure”36 in its direct
context, Sidney undoubtedly intended for us to take into account the implications of its sixteenth-
century homonym, ‘feign,’ meaning “to put a false appearance upon; to disguise, dissemble, or
conceal.”37 In this sense, the phrase “faine in verse my love to show” (1) can be understood as the
poet’s oblique acknowledgement of the way in which the rhetorical mode often puts forth an artfully
contrived fiction for the sake of concealing the “truth” (1) of the central self.
Furthermore, the notion of “verse” (1) accentuates our understanding of “show[ing]” (1) as
a reference to the rhetorical, as it automatically carries the implication of contrivance and artifice.
Verse, particularly a highly formalized genre like the sonnet, is by nature finely crafted and artificial,
with its careful meter and meticulously selected language designed to give a very controlled and
fashioned exhibition of the self. And indeed, we see that this very verse itself is highly wrought, as
David Kalstone calls our attention to the rhetorical qualities of Sonnet 1: “[This] is a sonnet about
style, the relation of style to matter, and it makes its declaration in splendid, controlled alexandrines,
35 “show, v.2 a” O.E.D. 36 “fain, adj.4 b” O.E.D. 37 “feign, v.6” O.E.D.
41
drawing the reader’s attention immediately to the boldness of the sequence and to its capacity, at
will, to vary from the accepted pentameter line.”38 Instead of composing Sonnet 1 in iambic
pentameter, the meter which most closely resembles the natural pattern of speech in English, Sidney
opts for the less organic and more artful iambic hexameter line, accentuating the inherently
rhetorical nature of “show[ing]” “in verse” (1). Finally, the framing of “verse” (1) as means to an end
in subsequent lines, “That she (deare she) might take some pleasure of my paine:/ Pleasure might
cause her read, reading might make her know,/ Knowledge might pitie winne, and pitie grace
obtaine” (2-4), further associates versification with man’s rhetorical self, since it is ultimately
designed to enhance the poet’s position. Astrophil tells us in these lines that he is eager to
demonstrate his emotions in crafted poems because that might convince his beloved, Stella, to
bestow her grace upon him. Thus, we see that in accordance with the aims of the rhetorical style and
sense of self, Astrophil’s poetry is the means to an end, rather than the end in itself.
Through the figure of Astrophil, Sidney continues to display his intimate familiarity with the
two styles of self-fashioning through language in lines 5 through 8 of Sonnet 1, which describe the
poet’s first attempts at versification. We see that the poet-lover looks to the highly rhetorical style in
order to express his “Loving in truth” (1) in art, as he explains:
I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe, Studying inventions fine, her wits to entertaine: Oft turning others leaves, to see if thence would flow Some fresh and fruitfull showers upon my sunne-burn’d braine. Astrophil’s reference to “paint[ing] the blackest face of woe” (5), an activity of representing the self
through language, strongly evokes a sense of the rhetorical mode. While the verb “paint” can mean
“to depict, describe, or call to the mind through the use of words,”39 it may also be defined as “to
38 David Kalstone. Sidney’s Poetry: Context and Interpretations. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965) 125. 39 “paint, v.1.4a” O.E.D.
42
represent or portray in a false or deceptive way.”40 Indeed, the very notion of crafting a metaphorical
“paint[ed] … face” (5), a “mask of woe” (AS 69, ll.5), to obscure the real thing relates to the
rhetorical strategy of self-expression. The use of the article “the” (5) in reference to “face” (5), rather
than the personal possessive pronoun “my,” likewise accentuates the suggestion of artifice and a
degree of removal from a serious, central self. Furthermore, Astrophil’s reference to seeking
inspiration by “studying inventions fine” (6), with “inventions” doubly signifying “a work as
produced by exercise of the mind or imagination”41 and “a fictitious statement or story,”42 the poet-
lover concerns himself not with organic experience and inward feeling, but with convention and
artfulness. Sidney’s speaker even goes so far as to turn “others’ leaves” (7) – that is, look at other
poets’ manuscript pages – to find “fit words” (5) that strategically convey his love, ostensibly
connecting the concept of rhetorical style with following literary tradition. In the subject matter of
these lines, we see that the poet-lover’s style is purely rhetorical without any trace of the serious
mode, and that he has turned away from his true impetus for writing, his experience of “Loving in
truth” (1).
Sidney continues to illustrate a deep understanding of the different facets of the self through
a discussion of literary style in the sestet, focusing in these lines on the serious dimension. By the
transition from octave to sestet in line 9, Sidney’s Astrophil admits that the purely outward method
of self-representation doesn’t work. Despite his best efforts, “words came halting forth” (9).
Delivering unsolicited advice on how to overcome his difficulty of self-expression through verse to
Astrophil the “Fool” (14), the straight-talking Muse of the very last line commands the struggling
poet-lover to “look in thy heart and write” (14). While some critics, such as Rosemond Tuve and
David Kalstone, maintain that the image of Astrophil’s “heart” (14) is a Renaissance trope which is
40 “paint, v.1.4b” O.E.D. 41 “invention, n.7” O.E.D. 42 “invention, n.8” O.E.D.
43
said to hold the image of the poet’s mistress (thus making the muse’s instruction about beholding
the beauty of Stella),43 the monosyllabic words and frank tone of the Muse’s advice are meant to
contrast the poet’s rhetorical efforts and undoubtedly embody the serious style. The word “heart”
(14) can also stand for the seat of one’s inmost thoughts and secret feelings, the depths of the soul,
the inner central self. Ostensibly associated with Astrophil’s initial experience of “Loving in truth”
(1), Sidney suggest here that verse-making, and by extension, expression of selfhood, is best
achieved not through complete reliance on rhetorical artifice or the serious mode, but rather a
negotiated combination of the two, emphasizing their dualistic nature. Evidently, Sidney must have
been intimately familiar with what we now call the serious and rhetorical modes of self-fashioning,
seeing as he was able to write nuanced poems about their proper relationship.
Sidney’s Consummate Mastery of the Rhetorical Style
Yet even as Sidney expertly demonstrates his knowledge of the two styles of selfhood and
literary expression in Sonnet 1, we notice an established preference for the rhetorical mode which
characterizes many of the early sonnets of Astrophil and Stella. In the opening line, “Loving in truth,
and faine in verse my love to show” (1), which arguably describes the serious mode and the
rhetorical mode in the two clauses, we notice that the second clause carries much more weight than
the first, illustrating a preoccupation with the rhetorical style. While Sidney, through the persona of
Astrophil, acknowledges the importance of serious style and the expression of a central self by
closing the sonnet with the muse’s advocation of the serious mode, the remaining 13 lines – that is
to say, the majority of the poem – are devoted to exploring the prevalent dominance of the
traditional rhetorical style in both literary composition and self-expression. Furthermore, if we
evaluate the content of Sonnet 1, Astrophil’s complaints of difficulty and fruitless exertion, in light
of its elegant construction and nuanced style, we realize that the poet-speaker himself is actually
43 Kalstone, 126.
44
using a rhetorical strategy throughout the poem. The content of each line paints a picture of Sidney’s
Astrophil as a humble and struggling amateur poet who is “helpless in [his] throes” (12) and must
look to “others feete” (15) for instruction on how “to entertaine” (6) Stella’s wit. In some ways, his
persona even recalls Wyatt’s naïve and inept masculine speaker of “What Vaileth Trouth?” who
struggles in love. Yet just as we see in Wyatt’s verse, the construction of the line itself contradicts
this portrait, as it illustrates a high degree of metrical skill, literary knowledge, and artistic expertise.
As Kalstone tells us, “With its elaborate rhetorical figures and its attention to Stella’s image, [Sonnet
1] uses a formal literary manner and … conventions quite ostentatiously.”44 The unusual use of
Alexandrines and the tightly patterned rhyme scheme are evidently the work of an expert poet, and
within the context of tradition, even the careful choice of subject matter attests to rhetorical mastery.
Admiring the already-novel nature of this poem for the way it opens the very first Petrarchan
sequence in English, the original audience of Astrophil and Stella would have recognized a great irony
presented by the speaker’s supposed trouble with composing verse, considering it mark of
distinguished wit. They also would have been impressed with Sidney’s innovative technique of
opening his love sonnet cycle with a poem not about love, but about writing and self-expression.
Sidney presents himself, through his creation of Astrophil, as a talented artist and veritable master of
the rhetorical mode.
As if looking to exhibit his remarkable command of linguistic manipulation and to confirm
his status as a master of this art, Sidney writes many of the early poems of Astrophil and Stella in an
aggressively self-promoting fashion, aligning himself with the tradition of his poetical and political
predecessors, while simultaneously rejecting it. Perhaps reflecting his early efforts to assert his
rhetorical abilities in the silver-tongued milieu of the Elizabethan Court, we see that in Sidney’s early
sonnets in this sequence, such as 1, 3, 6, 15, and 28, Astrophil uses the themes of composition and
44 Kalstone, 129.
45
literary style to establish himself in a dominant social position. Of these intensely multivalent poems,
Sonnet 15, in which Astrophil praises Stella as the ultimate source of poetic inspiration, is a well
known work and great illustration of Sidney’s rhetorical abilities:
You that do search for everie purling spring Which from the ribs of old Parnassus flows, And everie floure, not sweet perhaps, which growes Near thereabouts into your Poesie wring. You that do Dictionaries methode bring Into your rimes, running in ratling rows: You that poore Petrarch's long-deceased woes With new-borne sighs and denisend wit do sing. You take wrong ways those far-fet helps be such, As do bewray a want of inward tuch: 10 And sure at length stolne goods do come to light But if (both for your love and skill) your name You seeke to nurse at fullest breasts of Fame, Stella behold, and then begin to endite. On the most literal level, we see that Sonnet 15 is a Petrarchan courtly love poem in which Astrophil
exalts his beloved Stella – just as Petrarch idolized the beautiful Laura – by claiming that she is the
ultimate muse for aspiring poets. Astrophil’s estimation of Stella as the supreme source of creativity
is conveyed as he uses the accusatory pronoun, “You” (1, 5, 7, 9) to point out other poets who find
their inspiration in “Parnassus” (2), “Dictionaries methode” (5) and “Petrarch’s long deceased woes”
(7), and then criticizes them for lacking originality: “You take wrong waies those far fet helps be
such, / As do bewray a want of inward tuch” (9-10). Instead, Astrophil suggests in the final line,
“Stella behold, and then begin to endite” (14), insinuating that his beloved is far superior to the
classical Greek muses of Mount Parnassus, literary devices, and Petrarch’s poetry.
However, the striking deferral of Stella’s introduction to the very last line of the sonnet
implies that Astrophil the poet must have higher priorities, just as the speakers in Wyatt’s poems had
motives other than bemoaning the impossibility of seriousness in a rhetorical world. Following this
notion that Stella is an afterthought rather than the centerpiece of the poem, we see an emerging
picture of a highly rhetorical poet who not only takes part in the courtly love tradition by emulating
46
Petrarch, but also spins the characteristics of the given paradigm to make it represent his own
concerns. The role of the beloved becomes a resource of the courtly love model that can be
manipulated to accentuate his true point of interest: belittling other poets and their traditional
writing. Downplaying Stella and confining her to the final line, the poet has thirteen verses in which
to squash his competitors and establish himself as the dominant figure.
For example, the word play on “Poesie” in line 4 as both nosegay and written verse indicates
the speaker’s emasculation of the verse-maker who looks to “old Parnassus” (2) for stimulation.
Astrophil’s phrase “everie floure, not sweet perhaps” (3) similarly accuses other poets of being
tasteless in incorporating embellished words into their verse, while the slippery adjectives “deceased”
(7) and “poore”(7) discredit those who copy the Petrarchan paradigm: “You that poore Petrarchs
long deceased woes, / With new-borne sighs and denisend wit do sing” (7-8). Sidney’s Astrophil
raises the degree of ridicule with the use of “poore;” it can be sympathetic to the Italian sonneteer
who died without ever winning Laura, yet may also signify something “of little excellence or
worth.”45 Arguing that those who partake in a great literary tradition are really copying a worthless
model is a serious condemnation. Similarly, “deceased” (7) can refer to the fact that Petrarch’s literal
cries of unrequited love departed from life with him, but it also connotes that the tradition which
lives on is out-dated. All of these cruel blows are carefully worded so as to be scornful yet appear
inoffensive on the surface.
Yet Sidney’s illustration of his consummate command over the rhetorical mode continues on
another more sophisticated level, as we evaluate the content of Sonnet 15 in light of its mechanics.
While Sidney’s Astrophil derides, “You that poore Petrarch's long-deceased woes / With new-borne
sighs and denisend wit do sing” (7-8), we both see and hear his adherence to the Italian tradition
reflected in the end-rhymes, such as “spring” (1) and “wring” (4), that follow the expected
45 “poor, adj.2s” O.E.D.
47
ABBAABBA CCDEED pattern, breaking the sonnet up into a classic Italian octave and sestet.
Likewise, the poet-lover is guilty of using the very techniques he labels “far fet helps” (9), such as
alliteration (“rimes, running in ratling rowes” (6), “poore Petrarch” (7), “wrong waies” (9)) and fancy
flowery phrases (“everie purling spring,” (1) “fullest breasts of Fame” (13)). In effect, the accusatory
“You” (1, 5, 7, 9) could refer to Astrophil himself. Though these unoriginal “stolne goods” (11)
place Sidney among everyone else in his field that he attempts to rise above, this measure of irony
can also function on another level to undermine Stella’s greatness. By making use of the techniques
he deems as suitable only for B grade poets, Astrophil makes us wonder to what degree Stella is a
superlative muse, establishing the poet-speaker above his beloved in our minds. Who, we may ask,
does the poem pay tribute to now?
Astrophil (and by extension, Sidney the meta-poet) has become the true ‘star’. As J. G.
Nichols reminds us, “To disclaim the artistry and ingenuity in the act of using them is a stroke of
artistry and ingenuity in itself.46 When we read Sonnet 15, we cannot help but admire the deftness of
Sidney’s craft through the guise of Astrophil. In only 14 lines, the poet-speaker persuades us to
believe him on opposing matters: first that Stella is the ultimate source of fame-worthy inspiration
and he is better at his art than all of his competitors; and secondly, that he uses the same traditions
as other inferior poets, and that in all her greatness, Stella is ultimately inferior to Astrophil himself.
Naturally, we marvel at Sidney’s cleverness, the same variety of which we saw earlier in Wyatt’s
multivalent work. The delicate and intentional ironies of Sonnet 15 actually elevate our admiration of
Astrophil. Even when emulating a given literary paradigm, he rearranges and explores its resources
to leave his personal mark.
Hints of Sidney’s Struggle to Mediate the Serious and the Rhetorical Mode as Seen through Astrophil
46 Nichols, 19.
48
While we have seen that there are many masterfully rhetorical poems throughout the early
part of Astrophil and Stella which confirm that Astrophil (and by extension, Sidney) is indeed a
worthy practitioner of the political and aesthetic art of his predecessors, we notice that the poet-
speaker significantly modifies his consummately rhetorical self-portrayal about one-third of the way
through the sequence. Both Richard Young and David Kalstone agree that “a new movement in
Astrophil and Stella crystallizes in the sonnets numbered in the low 30s,” and that these poems
“suggest almost immediately Astrophil’s [stylistic] doubts.”47 As though moving beyond the
artificially boastful expression of confident selfhood found in Sonnet 3, “…in Stella’s face I read /
What love and beauty be; then all my deed / But copying is, what in her nature writes” (AS 3, ll. 12-
14), we begin to hear somewhat more authentic, if jarring, notes of uncertainty and dissatisfaction
with the prevailing rhetorical mode as Astrophil and Stella progresses: “What may words say, or what
may words not say, /When truth it selfe must speake like flatterie?” (AS35, ll. 1-2). This probing
inquiry in the opening lines of Sonnet 35 stands out boldly from the rest of the verse we have
encountered thus far, as a serious lament of the denigration of veritas into a verbal style
indistinguishable from falsehood. While it does not automatically set the tone for the poems that
follow, this simple question regarding the efficacy of language and its various modes is a miniature
testament to Astrophil’s growing anxiety about the uncontrollable plurality of the rhetorical world.
Despite the fact that the rest of Sonnet 35 becomes a verbal game hinged on the word “praise,”
obscuring Astrophil’s serious dimension, the two outstanding opening lines represent an important
gesture on the poets behalf toward the ever-increasing weight of the serious style.
Another flicker of serious expression amidst Astrophil’s rhetorical style occurs in Sonnet 45,
a supremely crafted and subsequently well known piece in which Astrophil decides to present
himself as a complete work of fiction in order to win Stella’s love. In the octave, the poet-speaker
47 Kalstone, 161.
49
rhetorically laments his inability to garner any “pitie” from his beloved for “the verie face of wo /
Painted in [his] beclowded stormie face” (AS 45, ll. 3, 1-2). Undoubtedly, the connotations of
artifice carried by the article “the” in place of “my” in line 1, and the verb “Painted” in line 2, point
towards Astrophil’s artful self-fashioning. However in the sestet, we see Astrophil frankly assert his
rhetorical tactics in a moment of serious expression as he pleads:
Alas, if Fancy drawne by imag’d things Though false, yet with free scope more grace doth breed Than servants wracke, where new doubts honor brings; Then thinke my dear, that you in me do reed Of Lovers ruine some sad Tragedie: I am not I, pitie the tale of me. (AS 45, ll. 9-14) In these lines, we see that Astrophil adopts the stratagem of Fancy in order to gain power to
persuade Stella, who is more moved by “imag’d things / Though false” (9-10) than the actual
“wracke” (11) of Astrophil. Yet the poet-speaker’s plea for Stella to “thinke” (12) of him as “the tale
of me” (14) – that is, to see him as a rhetorically constructed persona rather than as an irreducible
central self or “I” (14) –confirms in an earnest admission of selfhood that he is fundamentally a
serious “I.” Astrophil verifies here that he can never really be anything beyond his own central self,
such as the rhetorical “tale of me” or the mask of “some sad Tragedie” (14, 13); he can only be
thought of as such by Stella and others. Confirming that Astrophil is more than a merely rhetorical
creature, Anne Ferry notes that the phrase ““I am not I” lays claim to what it wittily denies: that
behind the pitiable “tale of me,” admittedly false and calculated to move Stella, is an “I” with an
identity distinct but unexpressed, held in reserve. … The lover is distanced from the general
representations of art.”48 Moreover, if we extend our critical sight beyond the persona of the poet-
speaker, we realize that the phrase, “I am not I” (14) can also be interpreted as Sidney’s reminder to
his audience that the figure of Astrophil is not an independent entity, but rather another rhetorical
mask adopted by the poet. 48 Ferry, 135.
50
More than a simple plea for Stella to look past the serious dimension of Astrophil’s being,
the aphorism “I am not I” (14) is also significant for the way that it voices a legitimate crisis of
selfhood. In Sonnet 35, Astrophil nearly violates his own identity as he attempts to deny his serious
self, a fundamental aspect of his being, in favor of embracing the rhetorical mode more ambitiously.
Indeed, Sidney himself must have been intimately familiar with the social pressure to negate or at
least stifle his earnest inner self with a more pleasing rhetorical demeanor – a “tale of me” (14) better
suited to the decorum of the Royal Court – in order to garner the “grace” (10) of the Queen.
Striking a feasible balance between the fictional mask of the courtier and his serious self was
historically challenging for Sidney, as we noted earlier in our discussion, exemplified by his
outstanding political ambassadorship to Rome, followed abruptly by his overly frank letter to
Elizabeth, and his uncouth quarrel with the Earl of Oxford. As we saw in Sonnet 35, and will
continue to see in subsequent poems, this great inner tension that Sidney experienced when it came
to mediating the serious and rhetorical aspects of his identity gets repeatedly explored through his
self-reflective poetic art.
Another noteworthy piece from Astrophil and Stella that articulately conveys Sidney’s desire to
parse the perpetually strained relationship between man’s serious and rhetorical dimensions is
Sonnet 34. A partial reprise of the themes from Sonnet 1, this poem delineates Astrophil’s desire to
write from his heart as the Muse originally demanded. However, we see that the process of verse-
making is greatly delayed and ultimately arduous because Astrophil’s rhetorical instincts derail the
efficacy of his serious self:
Come let me write, and to what end? to ease A burthned hart, how can words ease, which are The glasses of thy dayly vexing care? Oft cruell fights well pictures forth do please. Art not asham’d to publish thy disease? Nay, that may breed my fame, it is so rare: But will wise men thinke thy words fond ware? Then be they close, and so none shall displease.
51
What idler thing, then speake and not be hard? What harder thing than smart, and not to speake? 10 Peace, foolish wit, with wit my wit is mard. Thus write I while I doubt to write, and wreak My harms on Inks poore losse, perhaps some find Stellas great powrs, that so confuse my mind. Taking the form of a debate poem, an acknowledged means within the literary tradition of
representing conflict within the speaker,49 this sonnet is unique in the sense that the dispute taking
place in lines 1 through 10 is not between typical adversaries like Wit and Will, or Love and Reason,
but rather between the two opposed voices of Astrophil’s identity: his serious and the rhetorical
selves. This sonnet in effect seeks to dramatize man’s task of mediating between his central and
social selves. Opening the dialogue in line 1, the first voice asserts, “Come let me write,” with the
intent of unburdening Astrophil’s “hart” (2). Echoing Sonnet 1, this notion of writing from one’s
heart carries the implication of engaging one’s inner self, making it clear that this voice is
representative of the serious mode. Given the pride of place at the very opening of the poem, the
central self is established as the primary voice. Yet we see that the rhetorical voice, routinely striving
for personal gain from self-presentation, immediately checks the speaker’s central self by asking
“and to what end?” (1). In classic fashion, Astrophil’s rhetorical self precludes his serious dimension
from expressing earnest feeling in words without evaluating their final “end” (1), since “rhetoric’s
practical purpose is always to win or persuade,”50 as Richard Lanham reminds us.
Furthering the tension between these two aspects of the speaker’s identity, we see that while
the earnest central self is concerned with expressing “thy daily vexing care” (3), the social self works
against this desire for fear of being “ashamed” (5), or violating society’s cultural values with his
words. In these lines, it becomes clear that the inward orientation of the serious self inherently
opposes the rhetorical mode’s outward concern for the opinions of other “men [who might] think
49 Ferry, 146. 50 Lanham, 2.
52
thy words fond ware” (7), creating a great deal of strain. This dramatic difference in bearing is
highlighted again by Sidney in lines 9 and 10. On one hand, rhetorical Astrophil can not fathom
anything “idler … than [to] speak and not be heard” (9), illustrating an understanding that all
behavior is dramatic performance for the purpose of moving an audience. On the other hand, his
serious self can not think of anything “harder … than [to] smart and not speak” (10), conveying the
sense that one’s innermost sentiments naturally deserve expression and validation regardless of
whether or not they are received publicly.
Yet as different as these two voices are, Sidney reminds us that they are still parts of the
same whole: a complex self. End stopped lines dominate most of the debate, accentuating the
serious and the rhetorical as two contrasting entities, as in lines 7 and 8: “But will not wise men
think thy words fond ware? / Then be they close, and so none shall displease.” However the sonnet
opens with a startling instance of enjambment, “Come let me write, and to what end? to ease / A
burthned hart, how can words ease” (1-2), giving the impression that the voices of the serious and
rhetorical run together and that man’s multifaceted interiority cannot be neatly cleaved by lines.
Sidney seems to employ this particular syntactical construction to remind us that although they are
fundamentally opposed, one mode depends on the contrast of the other to exist, like the principles
of light and dark. This kind of tension is, I think, what Lanham is referring to in Motives of Eloquence
as he notes, “The Western self has from the beginning been composed of a shifting and perpetually
uneasy combination of homo rhetoricus and homo seriosus, of a social self and a central self. It is their
business to contend for supremacy.” 51 Astrophil’s “uneasiness” about this process of negotiating
aspects of his identity is particularly clear in the framing conclusion of the sonnet as he notes, “Thus
write I while I doubt to write” (12). Sidney’s precarious syntactical placement of the speaker’s “I” in
51 Lanham, 6.
53
combination with the emphasis on “doubt” gives us a strong impression that the serious and
rhetorical selves are now more equally weighted contenders than ever before.
While Sidney’s manner of speaking about the serious and rhetorical dimensions of the self
through the avenue of literary style and the selfhood of the poet is in many ways less clear and direct
than Wyatt’s illustration of feminine “doublness” and the masculine “true meaning heart,” 52 the
particular vehicle of the poet-lover in poems such as Sonnet 1, 34, 35, and 45 afford us a different
view of the relationship between the central and social modes of man not permitted by Wyatt’s
work. In poems such as “Eche Man Me Telleth” or “In Eternum,” Wyatt uses the social situation of
two separate individuals interacting with one another to illustrate his familiarity with the various
modes of self-representation. Most often, Wyatt’s masculine speaker intentionally labels himself as
the serious lover who has become in his naiveté the victim of the rhetorical lady’s deceptive language
and self-presentation, even though the speaker’s words and poetic strategies betray his own truly
rhetorical nature. However, Sidney effectively combines Wyatt’s two individuals into one,
dramatizing the serious and rhetorical through Astrophil, a single individual who is both “loving in
truth, and faine in verse [his] love to show” (1); a writer who must access and negotiate various
stylistic modes that correspond to aspects of his being. This method shifts the primary focus from
the styles themselves to the inherent tension that exists between them. Ultimately, we see that Sidney
is concerned not simply with man’s relationship to the serious and rhetorical selves, but with man’s
perpetual task of mediating the two, meaning that the serious dimension of man’s identity has become
a legitimate threat to the traditionally dominant rhetorical mode.
Sonnet 93 as a Culmination of Sidney’s Difficulty Negotiating the Serious and Rhetorical Styles
In concluding our discussion of Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella as an exercise in self-
representation through the motifs of literary style and writing, it beneficial to briefly examine Sonnet
52 Wyatt, “What Vaileth Trouth?” No. 1 (p.129) in Sylvester’s English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology.
54
93, a reprise of the themes explored in Sonnet 1, so that we may get a clearer picture of the way in
which Astrophil’s method of self-fashioning, and negotiating a balance between the serious and the
rhetorical, dramatically shifts over the course of the sequence. As Kalstone notes, “The progression
of Sidney’s sequence is linear, [and] we often find him questioning and redefining his attitudes rather
than reinforcing or deepening an initial impression,”53 making it possible for us to trace the
development of his “I” through Astrophil’s unfolding expressions of selfhood. In this poem from
the end of the sequence, we see that the poet-speaker’s initial, boastful confidence in the rhetorical
mode has now been replaced by serious expression that actually bemoans the shortcomings of the
rhetorical ideal:
O fate, o fault, o curse, child of my blisse, What sobs can give words grace my griefe to show? What inke is blacke inough to paint my wo? Through me, wretch me, even Stella vexed is. Yet truth, (if Caitifs breath may call thee) this Witnesse with me, that my foule stumbling so, From carelessnesse did in no manner grow, But wit confus’d with too much care did misse. And do I then my selfe this vaine scuse give? I have (live I and know this) harmed thee, 10 Tho words quite me, shall I me selfe forgive? Only with paines my paines thus eased be, That all thy hurts in my harts wracke I reede; I cry thy sighs; my deere, thy tears I bleede. Though the closing sestet of this poem can be said to regress back to the rhetorically aggressive style
seen in earlier sonnets like 15 and 3, this work is largely unique in that it starts out as an honest and
sustained admission of the failings of the rhetorical style that Astrophil once held in such high
esteem. Opening with the exclamatory sound, “O,” instead of a word with specific meaning, this
poem immediately brings to the forefront the recognition that there are feelings of such intensity
which no combination of embellished words could ever reflect, giving the poem a serious rather
than rhetorical tone. As Cooper notes, “this sonnet is intended to convey an impassioned, sincere 53 Kalstone, 160-161.
55
attitude,” 54 contrasting Sonnet 1 in which Astrophil masterfully “sought fit words to paint the
blackest face of woe” (AS 1, ll.1). We now see that inarticulate “sobs” (2) from the depths of his
central self come closer than artful “words” (2) to showing his “griefe” (2), and that there is no “inke
… blacke inough to paint my wo” (3). Astrophil’s once inscrutable confidence that “I can speake
what I feele” (AS 6, ll. 12) has given way to the sense that the process of articulating selfhood
through language is far more complicated – here, too complicated.
In addition to admitting the inadequacy of language – particularly in the rhetorical style – to
represent all dimensions of self, this sonnet is remarkable for the way that Astrophil presents an
honest portrait of his own failings. Though we are not privy to the exact nature of Astrophil’s
transgression, he makes it clear in lines 6 through 8 that his “foul stumbling” is related to his overly
rhetorical style – “wit confused with too much care” (8) that has “vexed” (4) and “harmed” (10)
even his beloved Stella. Unlike his self-fashioning in Sonnet 1, where he hoped “that she (deare she)
might take some pleasure of my paine: / Pleasure might cause her reade, reading might make her
know, / Knowledge might pitie winne, and pitie grace obtaine” (AS 1, ll. 2-4), there seems to be no
ulterior motive behind Astrophil’s painful self-presentation as a “wretch” (4) in Sonnet 93. In a
manner far from backhanded self-promotion, Astrophil frankly admits that his “wit” (8) has been
unsuccessful in persuading Stella, as he imagined it would in Sonnet 1. Such an open confession of
self blame and failure to charm others with one’s rhetorical skill – something we never saw in
Wyatt’s work – is an extreme rarity in the highly self-conscious Renaissance world, and illustrates
Astrophil’s relative degree of comfort in expressing his serious central self, even if it means placing
himself in the vulnerable a position of social subservience.
Unmistakably, we have seen throughout our discussion of both style and content in Astrophil
and Stella that Sidney has become increasingly more engaged in giving voice to his serious self (at
54 Cooper, 107.
56
least through the distancing persona of Astrophil) over the progression of his sonnet sequence. The
existentially secure and exceedingly rhetorical nature of early poems written in the highly stylized
tradition of Sidney’s courtly predecessors, such as Sonnet 1, 3, and 15, gradually gives way to a
definite preoccupation with negotiating a balance between the serious and rhetorical aspects of
man’s addresses to the world. Later poems such as 34, 45, and 93 are marked by a pressing (and
even desperate) interest in finding a feasible equilibrium between these two facets of identity, a
challenge that Sidney himself arguably faced on a regular basis during his time at court. These
subsequent sonnets seriously call into question the nature of the speaker’s “I,” and indicate a quite
radical shift in man’s conception of self. In Sidney’s masterful sequence, we see plain evidence of the
fact that by this point in history, the serious dimension of man’s identity has become a valid
counterweight to the traditionally favored rhetorical mode, confirming Berry’s estimation that “as an
exercise in self-representation, Astrophil and Stella is Sidney’s most sophisticated achievement.” 55
55 Berry, 102.
57
Coda:
Shakespeare�s Henry IV, Part I and the Dominance of the Serious Self in Early Modernity
I shall hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord, Be more myself. – Henry IV, Part I (3.2.91 – 92), Shakespeare 1 In the previous chapters of this study, we have seen through the poetic works of Sir Thomas
Wyatt and Sir Philip Sidney that man’s concept of personal identity, made manifest through his
strategic use of language, underwent significant changes and developments over the course of the
English Renaissance. At the dawn of the era, transitioning out of the Middle Ages, Wyatt’s
exemplary lyrical poems, such as “What Vaileth Trouth” and “In Eternum,” illustrated that man
fashioned himself as a predominantly rhetorical creature, despite a continual awareness of the
serious mode. Moving towards the height of the Renaissance, the voice in Sidney’s acclaimed sonnet
sequence, Astrophil and Stella, helped us to see that man had become less existentially secure in
embracing the rhetorical style than in the earlier years, and that his new preoccupation was with
striking a feasible balance between the inner central self and the outward multifaceted self. Rounding
out our discussion, we will conclude by exploring William Shakespeare’s famous history play, Henry
IV, Part I (1597) for some final insight on man’s attitudes towards identity and conceptions of self as
we approach the high Renaissance and of early modernity. Specifically, we will see from
Shakespeare’s dramatization of Prince Hal’s character that by the close of the sixteenth century, the
rhetorical style has been reduced from the prevailing mode of being to a linguistic tool employed by
serious individuals.
While the dramatic genre of Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I may initially brand it as a misfit
within the context of this study, we see that this late Renaissance text in fact complements the other
1 William Shakespeare. “Henry IV, Part I.” The Norton Shakespeare. ed. Stephen Greenblatt. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008) 1188 – 1254.
58
works, and is vital to the conclusion to this project, as it deals with the courtly milieu, captures
certain ideas about man’s identity and the end of the era, and artfully dramatizes the emergence of
the serious self. Despite its generic differences from the works of Wyatt and Sidney, Shakespeare’s
history play is likewise intimately invested in the aristocratic culture that highly influenced the earlier
court poets, putting it on similar ground with the works explored in earlier chapters. Though the
bard never served as a royal diplomat like the literary figures with whom we have hitherto been
concerned, he still seems to have had a nuanced understanding of the many pressures affecting one’s
presentation of selfhood at court. Using historical accounts from Holinshed’s Chronicles,2 Shakespeare
focuses his play in part on the character of Hal, the prodigal son of England’s King Henry IV, and
his radical transformation in personal identity. As Daniel Seltzer astutely notes:
These two plays [Henry IV, Parts I and II] are about the development of a personality, and the choices made in the course of that development. The character is that of a man in flux, and we should attach more importance to that sense of changing, of continual process, than is implied in our more or less common academic understanding that this is a prince educating himself. 3 Over the course of the performance, Prince Hal (who becomes King Henry V later in Part II) must
apply lessons learned in the bawdy and lewd world of Eastcheap, ruled by his errant companion Sir
John Falstaff, to the realm of the Royal Court, governed by his father. Both geographic domains
demand that Hal wear specific rhetorical masks in order to manipulate others. Yet what makes the
play truly remarkable as a milestone in the development of man’s self conception, as we shall see, is
Shakespeare’s ability to subtly convey – without totally revealing – the serious central self that
perpetually stands behind these rhetorical tools.
2 G. K. Hunter. “Introduction.” Shakespeare: Henry IV Parts I and II: A Casebook. ed. G. K. Hunter. (London: Macmillan, 1970) 11. 3 Daniel Seltzer. Prince Hal and Tragic Style.” Shakespeare Survey: Henry IV to Hamlet. 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 22.
59
As early on in the play as Scene 2 of Act 1, Shakespeare artfully delineates for his audience
an understanding of personal identity in which man is no longer a seamlessly multifaceted being, but
rather an irreducible serious self that dons and discards various masks at will. At the beginning of
the second scene, we are introduced to the character of Hal, a young man of a profligate and
immoral nature, who, like his comrade Falstaff, is ostensibly more concerned with “a purse of gold
most resolutely snatched on Monday night and most dissolutely spent on Tuesday morning” (1.2.30-
31) than with aristocratic activities. However, Shakespeare deftly rounds out this initial character
portrait by ending the scene with an extensive soliloquy on behalf of the future king. Many critics,
such as Wolfgang Clemen, assert that in revolutionizing the monologues of classical tragedy,
“Shakespeare was the first to turn the rigid pattern [of the soliloquy] into a vehicle capable of
expressing an intimate relationship” that man has with his inner dimension.4 In this moment of
privacy, designed to reveal the innermost thoughts and earnest secrets of the serious central self,
Prince Hal confesses that his prodigal temperament and penchant for disreputable company is little
more than a rhetorical device:
I know you all, and will a while uphold The unyoked humour of your idleness. Yet herein will I imitate the sun, Who doth permit the base contagious clouds To smother up his beauty from the world, That when he please again to be himself, Being wanted he may be more wondered at By breaking through the foul and ugly mists Of vapours that did seem to strangle him. … So when this loose behavior I throw off And pay the debt I never promised, By how much better than my word I am, By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes … (1.2. 173 – 181; 186 – 189) In these significant and revelatory lines, Shakespeare offers us a brief glimpse of Hal’s central
identity, his serious mode of address to the world, which he uses to earnestly expose his rhetorical 4 Wolfgang Clemen. Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. (New York: Methuen & Co., 1987) 33.
60
techniques of self-fashioning. His opening admission, “I know you all” (173), figuratively addressed
to his ne’er-do-well Eastcheap companions, suggests that Hal is actually an astute judge of character,
despite his social self-presentation to the contrary. Furthermore, we see that his outwardly prodigal
nature and participation in his friends’ “unyoked humor of … idleness” (174) is no more than a
strategic persona adopted for a time by an essentially serious self – “loose behavior” (186) that Hal
can (and will) readily “throw off” (186) without fundamentally altering any aspect of his personal
identity. As Richard Lanham notes, “Hal plays his royal role without being absorbed by it, without
forgetting its precarious dramatic construction.”5 This understanding of man’s self as a stable and
fixed concept that may only be made to outwardly appear different to others is reinforced by Hal’s
descriptive metaphor for his scallywag cohort as a group of “base contagious clouds” (176) or “foul
and ugly mists” (180) and himself as the inherently superior “sun” (175). Not entirely unlike
Astrophil’s inadvertent admission in Sonnet 45 that he can never really be anything beyond his own
central self, and that the rhetorical “tale of me” or the mask of “some sad Tragedie” are only
outward performances (AS 45, ll.14, 13), so too does Hal confirm his own self-presentation as one
with the tavern crowd to be in reality an intentional “smother[ing] up” (177) or a covering over of
his true identity.
Moreover, the understanding of selfhood offered by Shakespeare through Hal’s phrase, “By
how much better than my word I am, / By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes” (188-189) is
interesting for the way in which it relates man’s sense of personal identity to his use of language.
Essentially, we see here that man is not a protean and fluidly multivalent creature that invents his
self through a strategic manipulation of words, but rather an entity with an “I” necessarily unrelated
to, or at least potentially reserved from, his self as fashioned through language. This is to say that by
the high English Renaissance at the end of the sixteenth century– only fifteen years after Sidney’s
5 Richard Lanham. The Motives of Eloquence. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976) 207.
61
completion of Astrophil and Stella – man’s sense of self is now governed by the serious mode, with
the rhetorical style used as a manipulative device rather than a worldview6. Additionally, Prince Hal’s
intent to “falsify men’s hopes” (189) with his political strategy of self-presentation suggests that no
one suspected that his words and his identity might be disassociated, or that he may someday
“please again to be himself” (178). This detail confirms that men of this age already viewed the
dominance of the serious self to be normative, just as we do in modernity.
While Shakespeare’s remarkable literary technique does much throughout Hal’s soliloquy to
reveal that the equilibrium of man’s personal identity had thoroughly shifted towards the serious end
of the style spectrum by the late 1590s, such references to the growing importance of the central self
are not limited only to moments of confidentiality. Indeed, we hear a direct echo of Hal’s soliloquy
again in Act 3, Scene 2 as the young prince meets with his father, King Henry IV. After the
displeased monarch rebukes Hal for having allowed,
Such inordinate and low desires, Such poor, such bare, such lewd, such mean attempts Such barren pleasures, rude society, As [he] is matched withal … to Accompany the greatness of [his] blood, And hold their level with [his] princely heart, (3.2.12 -17) Hal responds by assuring him: “I shall hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord, / Be more myself”
(3.2.91-92). As to the exact implication of this passage, New Historicist Stephen Greenblatt argues:
‘To be oneself’ here means to perform one’s part in the scheme of power rather than to manifest one’s natural disposition, or what we would normally designate as the very core of the self. Indeed, it is no means clear that such a thing as a natural disposition exists in the play, except as a theatrical fiction.”7
6 Of course, Shakespeare’s dramatization of the state of man’s identity is anachronistic for the Middle Ages, in which this history play takes place. Though his characters belong to an earlier age, the bard arguably represents their interiority as he understood it as a member of Elizabethan society at the end of the Renaissance. 7 Stephen Greenblatt. “Invisible Bullets.” Shakespearean Negotiations. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) 46.
62
While it is perhaps true that Hal’s pledge to “be more himself” is meant in part to assure his father
that he will from this point forward fulfill more of his royal duties as an heir to the throne,
Greenblatt’s ambitious claim that these lines are not indicative of interiority – and moreover, that
there is not a single presentation of serious selfhood in the entire play – is unarguably misguided. In
keeping with the themes of the soliloquy regarding modes of self presentation and language, Hal’s
vow again implies that his Eastcheap identity is not part of his serious character. Likewise, the
notion underlying Hal’s aphoristic reply is precisely that there must be another “I” to contrast with
the one he has put forth thus far. Man’s ability to present his character as being more or less like
“himself” implies that we must all possess a fundamental and irreducible central self that stands
behind the various social masks we wear to manipulate others.
If we still need additional confirmation of the fact that Shakespeare’s Prince Hal effectively
represents man’s arrival at a modern conception of personal identity, we need look no further than
Act 2, Scene 5, in which Falstaff and Hal take turns role playing imaginary dialogues between the
King and his prodigal son. Speaking with the very voice of his father, Prince Hal demands for “that
villainous, abominable misleader of youth, Falstaff, that old white-bearded Satan” to be exiled
(2.5.421-422). Pleading against such a devastating verdict (and arguably permitting his serious central
self to supersede his rhetorical role), Falstaff, in the character of the prince, begs, “Banish not him in
thy Harry’s company. Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world” (2.5.437-438). Hal’s terse
response, “I do; I will” (2.5.439), in two tenses is significant for the way in which it elucidates his
conception of personal identity. Shakespeare arranges Hal’s reply in this play scene so as to call
attention to the difference between the prince’s capacity to play a role, and his ability to express his
serious self. The “I” of the present tense declaration is understandably Hal speaking in the persona
of the king, a mask that he has adopted momentarily for the sake of the rhetorical exercise. The
second “I,” expresses the same intention of banishing Falstaff, but in the future tense, indicating
63
Hal’s plans for when he finally discards his mask. The latter half of this line provides us with a brief
glimpse of the irreducible serious self that stands behind the rhetorical devices, a moment, according
to Daniel Seltzer, in which “Shakespeare brings the internalizing technique to perfection, and
through it denotes truly the silent, wordless motion of the mind and heart.”8
As a point of summation, it is worth noting that in regard to representing man’s
understanding of personal identity through language, Shakespeare’s Henry IV history plays hold a
special place in the canon of Renaissance literature for the way in which they artfully dramatize the
new, modern priority of a serious interiority. Produced immediately before Shakespeare’s turn to the
tragedies, Henry IV, Part I and II are seen by many critics as prefiguring later plays with remarkable
depictions of man’s sense of selfhood, such as Hamlet, Othello, and King Lear. Scholars like Katherine
Eisaman Maus, Wolfgang Clemen, Norman Sanders,9 and David Seltzer collectively agree that
Shakespeare first began experimenting with conveying the full depths and legitimate weight of the
serious inner dimension of his characters during his composition of the Henry plays and his creation
of Prince Hal in the late 1590s. Seltzer tells us:
Although Shakespeare shows us earlier that he was aware of the need for such a technique (for a technique it is, after all), he did not render it fully in plays written before I and II Henry IV … the technique itself, while no doubt Shakespeare did not acquire it as a conscious exercise, was a pre-requisite for the creation of the central figures of those plays we call the major tragedies … Therefore, Hal himself becomes the stage character whose ‘personality’ is one of the most pivotal in the playwright’s career, for in its composition he acquired the ability to make a character change internally.10 Yet at the same time, one would be naïve to believe that this development in man’s identity, “the felt
existence of an inner life from which motivation and action both spring,” 11 and the author’s ability
to convey such an inward dimension came about only at the very height of the Renaissance.
8 Daniel Seltzer. “Prince Hal and Tragic Style.” Shakespeare Survey: Henry IV to Hamlet. 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 27. 9 See Norman Sanders. “The True Prince and the False Thief: Prince Hal and the Shift of Identity.” Shakespeare Survey: Henry IV to Hamlet. 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 29 – 34. 10 Seltzer, 14. 11 Seltzer, 13.
64
As this study has attempted to illustrate, the serious aspect of man’s identity (and an interest
in conveying it), which blossoms with Shakespeare’s Henry IV at the end of the sixteenth century,
did not come about inexplicably and without precedent. Arguably, aspects of Shakespeare’s designs
in the character of Hal had been in the works since Wyatt’s recognition of the serious and rhetorical
modes of self fashioning in his lyrics and Sidney’s expression of the difficulty man faces in mediating
the two in Astrophil and Stella. Recognizing this fact, Eisaman Maus rightly insists:
When one looks at the wide variety of printed materials produced in the reigns of Elizabeth and James, it becomes difficult to claim that Hamlet’s boast of “that within” is anachronistic – that Shakespeare has mysteriously managed to jump forward in time and expropriate the conceptual equipment of a later era.12 We have seen in each chapter of this study that man’s identity has always been composed of both a
serious dimension, and a rhetorical one, some variable combination of an inner self, and a social self,
from the start of the English Renaissance. In the verse of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the most exemplary
poet of the early sixteenth century, both style and content point to an immersion in and mastery of
the rhetorical mode, though Wyatt’s speaker nevertheless recognizes and understands the concept of
a serious central self. Moving closer to modernity, we saw from Sidney’s sonnet sequence, that man’s
previous preoccupation with the rhetorical ideal had, for the most part, yielded to a concentration
on the task of mediating the central and social self. By exploring each poet’s developing conception
of selfhood through language in this way, we have come to understand that the dominance of the
serious style and aspect of human identity in today’s world is not an entirely new phenomenon that
springs up in the highly rational seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as some literary critics would
like to insist. Rather, we have seen that the modern serious self has always been present in some
degree, even in the highly rhetorical culture of the early Renaissance from which is seems so
estranged.
12 Katherine Eisaman Maus. Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995) 3.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barker, Roberta. “Tragical – Comical – Historical Hotspur.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall 2003) 288 – 307.
Bates, Catherine. “Wyatt, Surrey, and the Henrician Court.” Early Modern English Poetry: A Critical Companion. Patrick Cheney, Andrew Hadfield, Garrett A. Sullivan Jr., ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 38 – 47.
Berry, Edward. The Making of Sir Philip Sidney. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Chambers, E. K. “Sir Thomas Wyatt.” Sir Thomas Wyatt and Some Collected Studies. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965. 98 – 145.
Clemen, Wolfgang. Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1987. Duncan-Jones, Katherine. “Introduction.” The Oxford Authors: Sir Philip Sidney. Katherine Duncan- Jones, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. vii – xix. Ewbank, Inga-Stina. “Sincerity and the Sonnet.” Essays and Studies. Vol. 34 (1981). pp. 19 – 44.
Ferry, Anne. The “Inward” Language: Sonnets of Wyatt, Sidney, Shakespeare, Donne. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Greenblatt, Stephen. “Invisible Bullets.” Shakespearean Negotiations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. 21 – 65.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Greer, Germaine. “Ethics.” Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 49 – 77. Hagar, Alan. “The Exemplary Mirage: Fabrication of Sir Philip Sidney’s Biographical Image and the Sidney Reader.” ELH. Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring, 1981), 1 – 16. Hamilton, A.C. “Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella as a Sonnet Sequence.” Essential Articles: Sir Philip Sidney. Arthur F. Kinney, ed. Hamden: Archon Book, 1986. 193 – 221. Heale, Elizabeth. Wyatt, Surrey, & Early Tudor Poetry. London: Longman, 1998. Henning, Roslyn Brogue. “The Paideia of a Renaissance Gentleman: Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier.” Renaissance Men and Ideas. Robert Schwobel, ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1971. 108 – 119.
66
Herman, Peter C. “Introduction.” Sir Philip Sidney’s An Apology for Poetry and Astrophil and Stella: Texts and Contexts. Peter C. Herman, ed. Glen Allen, VA: College Publishing, 2001. 9 – 54. Hunter, G.K. “Henry IV and the Elizabethan Two-Part Play.” The Review of English Studies, New Series. Vol. 5, No. 19 (Jul., 1954). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954. 236 – 248. Hunter, G. K. “Introduction.” Shakespeare: Henry IV Parts I and II: A Casebook . ed. G. K. Hunter. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1980. 9 – 20. Javitch, Daniel. Poetry and Courtliness in Renaissance England. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Kalstone, David. Sidney’s Poetry: Contexts and Interpretations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. Kerrigan, John. “Wyatt’s Selfish Style.” Essays and Studies. Vol. 34 (1981). 1 – 18.
Lanham, Richard A. “Astrophil and Stella: Pure and Impure Persuasion.” Sidney in Retrospect: Selections from English Literary Renaissance. Arthur F. Kinney, ed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988. 100 – 115.
Lanham, Richard A. The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976. Low, Anthony. “Chapter 1: Sir Philip Sidney: “huge desyre.”” The Reinvention of Love: Poetry, Politics, and Culture from Sidney to Milton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.12 – 30. Marotti, Arthur F. “Love is not Love: Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences and the Social Order.” ELH. Vol. 49, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), 396 – 428. Martin, John Jeffries. “The Renaissance: A World in Motion.” The Renaissance World. John Jeffries Martin, ed. New York: Routledge, 2007. 3 – 31. Maus, Katherine Eisaman. Inwardness and the Theater of the English Renaissance. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995. McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2001. Muir, Kenneth. The Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1963. Peterson, Douglas L. The English Lyric from Wyatt to Donne: A History of the Plain and Eloquent Styles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. “Oration on the Dignity of Man.” Trans. Elizabeth Livermore Forbes. The Renaissance Philosophy of Man. ed. Ernst Casser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. 225.
67
Piesse, A.J. “Chapter 54: Identity.” A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture. Michael Hattaway, ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. 634 – 643.
Robinson, Jon. “The ‘Honestye’ of Thomas Wyatt’s Court Critique and the Unstable ‘I’ of his Verse. Court Politics, Culture, and Literature in Scotland and England, 1500 – 1540. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishers, 2008.
Rudenstine, Neil L. “Chapter XI: The Styles of Astrophel.” Sidney’s Poetic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. 172 – 182.
Sanders, Norman. “The True Prince and the False Thief: Prince Hal and the Shift of Identity.” Shakespeare Survey: Henry IV to Hamlet. Vol. 30 (1977). Kenneth Muir, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. 29 – 34.
Seltzer, Daniel. “Prince Hal and Tragic Style.” Shakespeare Survey: Henry IV to Hamlet. Vol. 30 (1977). Kenneth Muir, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. 13 – 27. Shakespeare, William. “Henry IV, Part I.” The Norton Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Stephen Greenblatt, ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2008. 1188 – 1254. Sidney, Sir Philip. “An Apology for Poetry.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Vincent B. Leitch, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2001. 326 – 362. Sidney, Sir Philip. “Astrophil and Stella.” The Oxford Authors: Sir Philip Sidney. Katherine Duncan- Jones, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 153 – 251. Sidney, Sir Philip. “Letter to Queen Elizabeth, 1580.” The Miscellanious Works of Sir Philip Sidney, Knt. William Gray, ed. Boston: T. O. H. P. Burnham, 1860. 289 – 303. Stillinger, Jack. “The Biographical Problem of Astrophil and Stella.” Essential Articles: Sir Philip Sidney. Arthur F. Kinney, ed. Hamden: Archon Book, 1986. 167 – 191. Stump, Donald. “History of Sidney Scholarship. Sir Philip Sidney: World Bibliography. 1 Jan 2005. Saint Louis University, Web. 3 Mar 2010. <http://bibs.slu.edu/sidney/history.html>. Sylvester, Richard S., ed. English Sixteenth-Century Verse: An Anthology. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984. Thompson, Patricia. Sir Thomas Wyatt and His Background. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964.
Thomson, Patricia, ed. The Critical Heritage: Sir Thomas Wyatt. London: Routledge, 1974. Traub, Valerie. “Gender and sexuality in Shakespeare.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Margareta de Grazia, Stanley Wells, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 129 – 146. Wilson, Bronwen. “The Renaissance Portrait: From resemblance to representation.” The Renaissance World. John Jeffries Martin, ed. New York: Routledge, 2007. 452 – 475.
68
Wilson, J. Dover. “Riot and the Prodigal Prince (1943).” Shakespeare: Henry IV Parts I and II: A Casebook . G.K. Hunter, ed. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1970. 92 – 100. Wyatt, Sir Thomas. Sir Thomas Wyatt: Collected Poems. Joost Daalder, ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Wyatt, Sir Thomas. Sir Thomas Wyatt: The Complete Poems. R. A. Rebholtz, ed. London: Penguin Books, 1978. Wyatt, Sir Thomas. The Poems of Sir Thomas Wyatt Vol. I & II. A. K. Foxwell, ed. New York: Russell & Russell Inc., 1964. Young, Richard B. “English Petrarke: A Study of Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella.” Three Studies in the Renaissance: Sidney, Jonson, Milton. Benjamin Christie Nangle, ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. 5 – 88.
Top Related