Astrophel and Stella: Pure and Impure Persuasion Author(s): Richard Lanham Publication Details: English Literary Renaissance

2. (!inter "#2): p $$% &. 'ource: Poetry Criticism. Ed. Ellen (c)eagh. *ol. +2. Detroit: )ale )roup, 2$$ . -rom Literature Resource Center. Document .ype: /ritical essay 0oo1mar1: Bookmark this Document Full Text: /2P3RI)4. 2$$ )ale )roup, /2P3RI)4. 2$$# )ale, /engage Learning 5(essay date "#2) In the following essay, Lanham contends that the essential cause of the poem sequence Astrophel and Stella is sexual frustration.6 .he 7irst sonnet in 'ir Philip 'idney8s se9uence con7ronts the di77iculty o7 :riting poetry :ith a stale and borro:ed rhetoric, the need to see1 a 7resh source o7 inspiration in real 7eeling and, presumably, in an una77ected praise and relationship to his mistress. 'tyle becomes not only means but theme, and this at the earliest possible moment. 'idney betrays, too, that acute sel7% consciousness :here;er :e touch him, in li7e or art. 0oth poet and poetry assert themsel;es as o7 thematic conse9uence. .he 7irst line o7 the poem opens that dichotomy bet:een :ords and deeds :e come upon so o7ten in the Old Arcadia, and the sonnet as a :hole :ould seem to pledge an e77ort to close it, to ma1e sure that the <Lo;ing in truth< is the 1ind o7 lo;e the ;erse 7inally re;eals. .hus :e ha;e a plea 7or spontaneous response in a :orld o7 stale rhetoric: <.he 7amous 7irst sonnet o7 Astrophel and Stella is a mani7esto o7 sincerity, an elo9uent re=ection o7 anything but the strictest de;otion to honest 7eeling.< Pursuing this train o7 thought, >. !. Le;er 7inds the sub=ect o7 Astrophil and Stella in 'idney8s attempt to remain true to his o:n 7eelings :hen they no longer 7it the tradition through :hich he must e?press them. <.he principal theme o7 Astrophel and Stella appears, then, as a study o7 the inner con7licts that romance precipitates in the personality o7 a contemporary man.<2 .he <dri;ing 7orce< o7 the se9uence thus becomes <the e?pression o7 a comple? personality.< -rom here, but a step leads to /. '. Le:is8 description o7 Astrophil and Stella as a <prolonged lyrical meditation.<+ .he poet8s internal struggle stands center stage, then, not his praise o7 Stella, and he struggles :ith the intractability o7 language as :ell as :ith the 7orce o7 lo;e. .he anatomy o7 the struggle has been laid out 7or us by Richard 0. 3oung8s brilliant essay on the poem.@ 4e traces :ith great acuity 'idney8s adoption o7 one role a7ter another in his e77ort to 7ind, or de;ise, one true to his 7eelings and acceptable to a larger :orld o7 moral and social demands. & .hese ;ie:s, :hich represent a consensus o7 the most recent critical thin1ing on the poem, 7ind their center to be that heart into :hich Astrophil bids himsel7 loo1 at the end o7 the 7irst sonnet. 'idney is imitating himsel7 as poet and Petrarchan rhetor, and :e are in;ited to share the o7ten ironic scrutiny under :hich he puts himsel7 or his ;arious personae. Insincerity and stale rhetoric, e?tra;agant Petrarchan compliment generally, :hich 'ir 'idney Lee and others complained o7, are no: seen as the ob=ect o7 the poet8s derisory humor, as care7ully controlled by the dramatic conte?t. A77ectation becomes an important part o7 the story 'idney see1s to tell. .he discrepancy bet:een

:ords and deeds, bet:een real 7eeling and the rhetorical mas1s de;ised to conceal and distort it, emerges as a central theme in the poem, and the poem8s relation to the Old Arcadia, :hich 'idney had :ritten =ust be7ore, becomes a good deal clearer. And i7 :e thin1 o7 the heroic assertion o7 the New Arcadia :hich 7ollo:ed, perhaps :e may legitimately 7ind it a natural de;elopment 7rom the heroic possibility :hich haunts the sonnets. 'idney is 7ree to praise the heroic li7e precisely because he has in9uired so closely into its cost, into the sel7%control :hich it demands. All this agreement I 7ind both attracti;e and persuasi;e. 3et the conception o7 Astrophil and Stella :hich ma1es it possible seems to ignore a substantial element in the se9uence as a :hole. Let us return to the 7irst sonnet: Lo;ing in truth, and 7aine in ;erse my lo;e to sho:, .hat the deare 'he might ta1e some pleasure o7 my paine: Pleasure might cause her reade, reading might ma1e her 1no:, Ano:ledge might pitie :inne, and pitie grace obtaine, I sought 7it :ords to paint the blac1est 7ace o7 :oe, 'tudying in;entions 7ine, her :its to entertaine: 27t turning others8 lea;es, to see i7 thence :ould 7lo: 'ome 7resh and 7ruit7ull sho:ers upon my sunne%burn8d braine. 0ut :ords came halting 7orth, :anting In;ention8s stay, In;ention, Bature8s child, 7led step%dame 'tudie8s blo:es, And others8 7eete still seem8d but strangers in my :ay. .hus great :ith child to spea1e, and helplesse in my thro:es, 0iting my tre:and pen, beating my sel7e 7or spite, 8-oole,8 said my (use to me, 8loo1e in thy heart and :rite.8 C .he superbly dramatic last line has distracted attention 7rom the considerably more important 7irst 7our. .he opening gradatio is, a7ter all, both the blueprint 7or, and the raison d' tre o7, the entire se9uence. 'incere Astrophil indeed :ants to be. Lo;e in truth, he does. And a sincere rhetoric he indeed :ishes to create. 0ut all this is as prologue to the s:elling theme. 4e :ants to obtain <grace.< 4e :ants to bed the girl. .he essential cause o7 the se9uence is se?ual 7rustration. 4e is 7ain in ;erse his lo;e to sho: because Stella :ill not allo: him to sho: it in a more satis7actory manner. 4e tells himsel7 in "Sonnet 70" that <'onets be not bound prentise to annoy,< that his muse can sho: the <height o7 delight.< 0ut she cannot, o7 course. .he ironic couplet o;erturns the specious reasoning o7 the preceding t:el;e lines: <I gi;e you here my hand 7or truth o7 this, D !ise silence is best music1e unto blisse.< .o attain that bliss, other 1inds o7 music are tried. A great many 1inds play their part, as many roles as Astrophil a77ects, as many conceits as he presses into ser;ice, as many oscillations and ;acillations bet:een laus and !ituperatio as he :earily traces. 3et all are essentially not poetic but rhetoricalE they all aim to persuade. Fnless :e simply agree to ignore the opening 7our lines o7 sonnet , the :hole se9uence is applied poetry. It has an ulterior moti;e. !e 7ind this inadmissible, no doubt. !e are 7ree, thus, to ignore it. 'idney seems to ha;e 7elt di77erently. 4is purpose is to persuade the lady, and he begins his sincerity at home by con7essing that this is so. -or the critic, such a moti;e must 7or se;eral reasons be regretted. It is not nobleE coming 7rom the pattern

o7 nobility, it is troublesome. 'till :orse, plain desire, unli1e spiritualiGed lo;e, is not ;ery tal1%aboutable. Bor is it distincti;e, as :e should li1e 'idney, i7 he cannot be noble, at least to be. 0ut this is ho: the se9uence begins, and this is ho: it proceeds. .he 7orce o7 desire su77uses 'idney8s dramatiGation o7 himsel7 as Astrophil. 4e uses the :ord again and again in the se9uence, as :ell as in the 7amous + o7 Certain Sonnets (<Desire, desire I ha;e too dearely bought, D !ith price o7 mangled mind thy :orthlesse :are<). .he reader may 7eel that 'idney mounts the Platonic ladder to Lo;e, but he himsel7 ma1es no such brag: Desire, though thou my old companion art And o7t so clings to my pure Lo;e, that I 2ne 7rom the other scarcely can descrie, !hile each doth blo: the 7ier o7 my hart: Bo: 7rom thy 7ello:ship I needs must part ... (#2) 4e must re7ine his desire into *irtue8s gold, he tells himsel7. 0ut, once again, he is :histling in the dar1: 0ut thou Desire, because thou :ouldst ha;e all, Bo: banisht art, but yet alas ho: shallH .he te?ts :hich ma1e <Lo;e< mean predominantly, i7 not e?clusi;ely, <desire< recur so o7ten that the point hardly needs arguing. Desire cries, at the end o7 # , <gi;e me some 7ood.< .he rhyme is *irtue8s <good,< and there is no doubt as to :hich :ins the contest. Stella in CI is the <li7e o7 my desire.< In &I, he is :illing to grant Stella8s sel7 to *irtue, i7 he can ha;e her body. In the Ith song, :hich 3oung sees as the center o7 the se9uence, :hat is at sta1e is the physical act o7 lo;e, :hate;er psychic superstructures 'idney8s muse might, had he been success7ul, ha;e a7ter:ards built upon it. Astrophil can be seen, then, in a posture ;ery di77erent 7rom that o7 the secular meditator, harro:er o7 the hell :ithin. 4e loo1s in his heart, bites his truant pen, to 7ind persuasi;e de;ices. /ritics today are practiced passing :ell on a poetry o7 meditation, and 7ind in it its o:n =usti7ication 7or being and then some. I do not thin1 such an attitude altogether 7its Astrophil and Stella. A ;ery practical purpose haunts 'idney8s presentation o7 sel7. 'uch a direction, :e should remember, :as a ;ery legitimate one 7or the sonnet%se9uence to ta1e. 2nce it shoo1 7ree 7rom the narrati;e obligations :hich 7iction then assumed 7rom the nascent (enippean 7orm (the prose narrati;e bridges bet:een the poems gradually e?panding until they s:amped the poetry) the sonnet%se9uence might legitimately loo1 out%:ard or in:ard. 2ut:ard, it sa: the mistress and consummation. It became applied poetry. 2r it could loo1 in:ard, harro: the soul o7 the poet, and ma1e o7 lo;e occasions 7or meditati;e introspection, so many burial urns 7or a .homas 0ro:ne. .he poetry here :as pure, not applied, and a consummation, since it chased a:ay the muse, :as de;outly not to be :ished.

Astrophil and Stella ta1es the out:ard path, desires consummation consummately throughout. 'ha1espeare ma1es o7 the sonnet%se9uence a real meditati;e ;ehicleE 'idney does not. 'ha1espeare can do so because he lo;es both a man and a :oman, and the :oman he has long possessed. 4is itches are cosmic, neural, not young, 7iery, adolescent. 4e can also do so because he e?presses :hat the po;erty o7 my style 7orces me to call a more capacious soul than 'idney8s. !hen 'ha1espeare loo1s :ithin himsel7, he 7inds an allegorical landscape as large as li7e. I, and I seem to be alone in this, do not 7ind the heart into :hich 'idney loo1s one o7 any e?traordinary richness. 4is themes are 7e:, his scale hardly ;ast. 2n the one side :e ha;e desire. 2n the other, ambition, a ban1rupt pro;erbial :isdom, and some chattering court :its :ho do not 1no: (ho:, honestly, could they be e?pected toH) :hat is passing in the depths o7 Astrophil8s soul. I7 lo;e is largely desire, the personality in :hich it :rea1s such ha;oc is ;ery largely a con;entional one. .he dramatic po:er o7 the se9uence, in 7act, seems to come 7rom precisely this simpli7ied con7rontation bet:een desire and con;ention. Astrophil8s personality comes to be resonant, symbolic, largely because it depicts so clearly, :ith such po:er7ul drama, the impact o7 desire on a con;ention mani7estly inade9uate to cope :ith it. .hus d:elling on the richness or the modernity o7 Astrophil8s (or 'idney8s) personality, as Le;er does, leads up the :rong trac1. It ma1es 'idney into a proto%'ha1espeare and this is precisely :hat he :as not. .here is little deep thin1ing, aside 7rom the large con7rontation :e ha;e =ust described, in Astrophil and Stella, unless it be in the re7lections about language :e shall subse9uently discuss. .he <philosophy,< upon closer e?amination, turns out to be largely <argument.< Astrophil and Stella is a great poem, but not a great philosophical one. Aenneth 0ur1e, in one o7 the most brilliant sections o7 A Rhetoric of "oti!es, isolates a concept :hich he calls <pure persuasion.< !ith tal1 o7 <pure persuasion,< the 7actor o7 degree can readily con7use us. .hus, :e may thin1 o7 social or literary courtship as pure persuasion, :hen :e contrast it :ith a direct bid 7or se?ual 7a;ors, or :ith commercial ad;ertising. 'imilarly, education in contrast :ith debating might be called pure persuasion. And scienti7ic or religious insemination may seem <pure< :hen compared :ith the in=ection o7 the doctrinal seed through political ideologies. 0ut all these modes o7 e?pression are <impure,< and see1 ad;antage, as compared :ith the absolute, and there7ore none?istent, limit :e spea1 o7. 3et, though :hat :e mean by pure persuasion in the absolute sense e?ists no:here, it can be present as a moti;ational ingredient in any rhetoric, no matter ho: intensely ad;antage%see1ing such rhetoric may be. ... At this stage :e need only note that the indication o7 pure persuasion in any acti;ity is in an element o7 <stando77ishness,< or perhaps better, self#interference, as =udged by the tests o7 ac9uisition. .hus, :hile not essentially sacri7icial, it loo$s sacri7icial :hen matched against the ac9uisiti;e.Pure persuasion in;ol;es the saying o7 something, not 7or an e?tra%;erbal ad;antage to be got by the saying, but because o7 a satis7action intrinsic to the saying. It summons because it li1es the 7eel o7 a summons. It :ould be nonplused i7 the summons :ere ans:ered.#

In such a /ategoriGation, :e :ould ha;e to classi7y the persuasion in 'ha1espeare8s sonnets as <pure,< that o7 'idney8s <impure.< 4is is the direct bid 7or se?ual 7a;ors that 'ha1espeare8s is not. And yet :here :ould :e ran1 the persuasion o7 this sonnetH !ith :hat sharpe chec1es I in my sel7e am shent, !hen into Reason8s audite I do go: And by =ust counts my sel7e a banc1rout 1no: 27 all those goods, :hich hea;8n to me hath lent: Fnable 9uite to pay e;en Bature8s rent, !hich unto it by birthright I do o:: And :hich is :orse, no good e?cuse can sho:, 0ut that my :ealth I ha;e most idly spent. (y youth doth :aste, my 1no:ledge brings 7orth toyes, (y :it doth stri;e those passions to de7end, !hich 7or re:ard spoile it :ith ;aine annoyes. I see my course to lose my sel7e doth bend: I see and yet no greater soro: ta1e, .hen that I lose no more 7or Stella's sa1e. ( I) .his is not the least strong o7 those sonnets :hich de;elop the central theme o7 passion and reason, sel7%di;ision8s cause. !e see the poet :rithing in the dichotomy, torn in t:o directions. 3et is he reallyH !hich attitude does he mean us to ta1e seriously, the regret o7 the 7irst t:el;e lines or the ;ery di77erent regret o7 the last t:oH 0othJ :e say, schooled on 7ertile tensions. .his is true o7 course, but t:o 1inds o7 persuasion seem to be operating. -or the 7irst t:el;e lines, 'idney8s sonnet does not seem to be as1ing 7or anything at all. Kuite the re;erse. 4e regrets :hat he has lost. .hen, in the ironic re;erse o7 the couplet, he regrets that he has not lost more, that he has not more to lose, 7or Stella8s sa1e. 3et, though he means this, :e cannot belie;e that he means it in the same :ay as he means the 7irst t:el;e lines. 4e :ould not, that is, :elcome a suggestion 7rom Stella as to 7urther ;ain sacri7ices :hich he might ma1e in her behal7. .he last t:o lines, then, are pure persuasion. 4e :ould :elcome more sel7%di;ision, more sel7%inter7erence, than he has. !e ha;e to do :ith sacri7ice 7or the sa1e o7 sacri7ice, no ;erbal ad;antage aimed at. !ith this in mind, :e might again in9uire about the status o7 the 7irst t:el;e lines. (ight those sacri7ices, too, be pureH /learly they cannot be, since they are 7orced upon the poet. 3et he :ould not a;oid ma1ing themE he :ould ma1e use o7 them. .he <pure persuasion< o7 the couplet is an attempt to mo;e the :hole sonnet into this category, to say to Stella, <'ee :hat I lose 7or you, e;en mysel7 I :ill lose, and :ant only to lose more.< 3et the attempt 7ails and is supposed to 7ail. .he sacri7ices o7 the 7irst t:el;e lines are se;ere and se;erely 7elt, and :orth it only i7 Stella relents. .hus Astrophil presents his un:illed sorro: as :illed, tries to master his 7rustration by a tric1, to transcend it :ith :it, to use it. .his transcendence is :hat :e admire in the sonnet and :hat Stella is supposed to admire. And, at the same time, she is to see that the ;ictory is temporary, illusory. .he attempt at <pure< persuasion is 7inally <impure,< aimed at gaining Stella8s consent. 'o, too, in &", :here Astrophil starts out purely, as :ishing to be dog%substitute

7or Stella. 4e begins, <Deare, :hy ma1e you more o7 a dog than meH< and ends up by implying, through the coy humor o7 his posturing (<I7 he be 7aire, yet but a dog can be ... D 4e bar1s, my songs thine o:ne ;oyce o7t doth pro;e<) that Stella, i7 she does not say <yes,< :ill be a bitch. I7 :e thin1 o7 each o7 the sonnets as preser;ing, under the guise o7 a <pure< sacri7ice, an <impure< plea 7or succorE i7 :e thin1 o7 each o7 them as mo;ing up the gradatio o7 sonnet IE might it not then be possible to consider all the sel7%di;isions o7 the sonnets as, ho:e;er deeply (or shallo:ly, 7or that matter) 7elt, introduced into this se9uence 7or particularly rhetorical purposesH 'idney di;ides himsel7 because o7 the poetic%%and hence 7inally rhetorical%%gain to be got by putting himsel7 bac1 together as a gi7t to Stella. (ight it not be that the meditation, ;ie:ed in light o7 the intention o7 the 7irst 7our lines, becomes meditati;e mannerism in the ser;ice o7 a rhetorical purposeH 2ther:ise, it seems di77icult to e?plain the continual repudiation o7 meditation8s 7ruits in the couplet. I7 the meditations are primarily meditations, they are unusually meagre. 'o Astrophil is :illing, eager, to repudiate them at the appearance, or e;en suggestion, o7 Stella. Loo1 at "Sonnet 47<: !hat, ha;e I thus betrayed my libertieH /an those blac1e beames such burning mar1es engra;e In my 7ree sideH or am I borne a sla;e, !hose nec1e becomes such yo1e o7 tyrannyH 2r :ant I sense to 7eele my miserieH 2r sprite, disdaine o7 such disdaine to ha;eH !ho 7or long 7aith, tho dayly helpe I cra;e, (ay get no almes but scorne o7 beggerie. *ertue a:a1e, 0eautie but beautie is, I may, I must, I can, I :ill, I do Lea;e 7ollo:ing that, :hich it is gaine to misse. Let her go. 'o7t, but here she comes. )o to, Fn1ind, I lo;e you not: 2 me, that eye Doth ma1e my heart gi;e to my tongue the lie. !hat it seems to say is that Astrophil can 7ind no resource in his o:n comple?ities o7 character, in the :isdom o7 meditation. .he resources o7 philosophy are ban1rupt :hen 7aced :ith a 7lesh and blood Stella :ho scatters them li1e ghosts at da:n. .he sonnet thus dramatiGes the 7ailure o7 introspection. It, and the many li1e it, might be more clearly concei;ed as progymnasmata rather than philosophic introspections, rhetorical e77orts :hich press the 7ailure o7 philosophy into ser;ice as a 7inal, clinching argument. 'idney loo1s in his heart and declaims. !hat I ha;e been saying is that posturing, once admitted, admits no natural limitation. I7 Astrophil, or perhaps :e should say 'idney, is <acting a role< at one point, he might be acting a role at any point. 4o: do :e =udgeH !e cannot. All roles are e9ually dramatic and assumed, ludic, all arguments and 7eelings e9ually agonistic. All are directed to:ard changing Stella8s mind because the desire Astrophil 7eels 7or her is simply o7 another order o7 magnitude 7rom any arguments :hatsoe;er. .hat is real, the rest <rhetoric.<

Pascal pro;ides the gloss: <Les passions sont les seuls orateurs qui persuadent tou%ours.< 0y re7erring to Astrophil and not to 'idney, I ha;e dodged the problem o7 :ho is tal1ing in Astrophil and Stella. It :as a prete?t. .here is no Astrophil in the poem e?cept as a name. It is 'idney :ho spea1s, :hen he spea1s in the <biographical< sonnets, I, 7or e?ample, or 2@ and +#, or @" and &+, or ++ and probably, too, in the Ith song. !hen he postures, it is 'idney :ho postures and not Astrophil. 'idney did not title the :or1. 2b;iously he could not call it (7or the manuscript circulation :hich is all he 1ne: anything about or :ould ha;e condoned) <Philip and Penelope.< 4e :as not trying to hide the truth so much as 7ollo: a con;ention :hich mas1ed the truth under 7limsy prete?t. 3oung tries, as a 7ormalist should, to see a consistent persona, the ob;ious biography lending <concrete conte?t< (p. &), but it is uphill :or1. /ertainly he is right to see the <li7e,< the ;er;e o7 'idney8s sel7%portrayal coming not 7rom its biographical ;eracity but 7rom <his ability to see himsel7 ... as an actor in a ;ariety o7 situations to :hich his thought, his 7eeling, and his manner o7 e?pression are adapted< (p. 2+). 0ut in a poem so 7ull o7 posturing, so 7ull o7 personae, to begin :ith, :hat need is there to rei7y a master personaH !hat does it addH !hy not let the poem be bac1lighted by biography as 'idney intendedH Perhaps the ob=ection ad;anced by 7ormalist theory may be allayed by remembering that Astrophil and Stella is an illegitimate type to begin :ith, applied poetry. Its nature as a ;ehicle o7 direct courtship ma1es it biographical 7rom the beginning. 'idney ta1es as theme, a7ter all, the relation o7 desire to the literary language a;ailable to describe and, presumably, control it. E;erything :e 1no: about Astrophil and Stella militates against considering it as a 7inished poem, pure persuasion. 4e :rote it as an immediate e77ort to cope :ith an immediate crisis in 7eeling. .he identities o7 both hero and heroine :ere clear. .he original small manuscript audience :as probably e?pected to 7ill in a good deal more biographical in7ormation than :e no: possess. It could supply, abo;e all, the crucial tone, the spirit in :hich to read, a tone :e must re%synthesiGe 7rom the sonnets themsel;es. A substantial part o7 the manuscript audience must ha;e 1no:n 'idney and thus had a standard, :hich the poem does not altogether supply by itsel7, against :hich to =udge the posturing, the role%playing. I am not saying that the se9uence cannot sur;i;e e?traction 7rom its biographical matri?. It can and has. 0ut :hy e?tract it :hen it ob;iously gains 7rom being le7t as the anomalous arti7act, hal7 art and hal7 li7e, :hich it :asH It is because it is applied poetry, poetry :hich aims directly at ma$ing something happen, that it adopts the rhetorical strategy it does. Ringler, in his commentary, considers that <the legitimate critical procedure is not to ignore the biography but to 7ind out :hat 1ind o7 biography it is< (p. @@$). 3et, although he sorts out the biographical in7ormation in the poem :ith patient assiduity, he ne;er ans:ers his o:n 9uestion. !hat 1ind o7 biography is itH .he principle o7 selection seems to me to be not :hat is needed to create concrete biographical or narrati;e conte?t, but :hat is needed to rein7orce 'idney8s rhetorical purpose. 4e turns li7e to use as he turns imaginati;e li7e to use. 0oth try to persuade. 4e loo1s in his heart some o7 the time. At other times, he loo1s at the :orld and dra:s his strategy 7rom there.

.he principle o7 choice is rhetorical e77ecti;eness. In @&, 7or e?ample, the poet loo1s at the scene in great hall or closet and learns his lesson 7rom it. I7 7abled or dramatic lo;ers mo;e Stella, he :ill become one. 'ometimes, as in $ , the e;ent (the sic1ness o7 Stella) pro;ides a simple ta1e%o77 point 7or a still simpler sonnet. .he real :orld becomes not concrete detail but a great storage chest o7 rhetorical argumentation, the (other o7 In;entions. 2r loo1 at the 7amous biographical aside, <Rich 7ooles there be<: Rich 7ooles there be, :hose base and 7ilthy hart Lies hatching still the goods :herein they 7lo:: And damning their o:ne sel;es to &antal's smart, !ealth breeding :ant, more blist, more :retched gro:. 3et to those 7ooles hea;8n such :it doth impart, As :hat their hands do hold, their heads do 1no:, And 1no:ing, lo;e, and lo;ing, lay apart As sacred things, 7ar 7rom all daunger8s sho:. 0ut that rich 7oole, :ho by blind -ortune8s lot .he richest gemme o7 Lo;e and li7e en=oyes, And can :ith 7oule abuse such beauties blotE Let him, depri;ed o7 s:eet but un7elt =oyes, (E?il8d 7or ay 7rom those high treasures, :hich 4e 1no:es not) gro: in only 7ollie rich. (2@) Bot much concrete detail is supplied about Lord Rich. 2nly :hat is needed 7or the rhetorical purpose o7 the poem, the contrast bet:een blind Lord Rich and 'idney, :ho can see only too :ell. Lord Rich :ill gro: rich in 7olly, 'idney in 1no:ledge. 'idney in7lates himsel7 by damning Lord Rich, then discards him as a biographical prop. .he same criterion o7 rhetorical e77ecti;eness should apply to 'idney8s o:n presence in the poem. /ritical opinion has ranged :idely in this matter. .he generation o7 'ir 'idney Lee 7ound a77ectation e;ery:here and the <real< 'idney (i.e., <real 7eeling<) but little. .heodore 'pencer, :hose 'L( article in "@& really started the current re;aluation o7 'idney, maintained precisely the opposite: <In Astrophel and Stella 'idney tries deliberately to put con;ention aside, and to spea1 out 7or himsel7< (p. 2CI). And Da;id Aalstone recogniGes the arti7ice but sees it as a series o7 mas1s: <.he mastery o7 persons is :hat ma1es the sonnets o7 Astrophel and Stella a more 7le?ible medium 7or :riting about lo;e than the sonnets o7 the Arcadia< (p. & ). A rhetorical perspecti;e 7inds common ground in all these ;ie:points. 'idney certainly searches 7or his o:n ;oice, cries 7or 7ood as directly as man can. 4e plays roles. 0ut he also ta1es up stale a77ectation :ithout the built%in ironic scrutiny. 3oung 7inds the irony per;asi;e. A recent article by Ann 4o:e ta1es issue and 7inds some o7 the ironically%de7ended poems (the early ones a7ter I, 7or e?ample) simply inept.I I see no reason :hy 'idney8s rhetorical strategy could not call 7or con;ention at one time, ironic counterpoint at another. .he concern 7or consistency stems 7rom considering the se9uence as :holly a literary arti7act, 7rom ignoring its persuasi;e purpose. In the )aiser group, 7or e?ample, a great deal is made o7 a 1iss. .he modern reader may 7ind it

tedious. 3et 'idney is simply seiGing an occasion 7or persuasi;e poetry. .he occasion did not lend itsel7 to ironic impro;ement, so irony :as le7t alone. 'idney :as a con;entional Petrarchan sonneteer playing :ith a tri7le. I cannot thin1 it use7ul to number and categoriGe the roles 'idney plays. In a rhetorical structure such as he has created, any role could 7it. And i7 :e cannot 7ind an artistic pattern in the roles, :e cannot 7ind a master persona, a standard to =udge a77ectation in terms o7 the poem itsel7. Instead, :e see 'idney casting about, using 7or his compulsi;e purpose :hate;er comes to hand. )reat critics ha;e disputed :hether Astrophil and Stella tells a story, and i7 so :hat 1ind. .his is a non%problem. .he :or1 chronicles a series o7 attempts to persuade. .his is narrati;e o7 a sort, but o7 a peculiarly rhetorical sort. It stands hal7:ay bet:een li7e and literature and dra:s indiscriminately 7rom both. Its protagonist is 7irst 7ictional, then the real and historical 'ir Philip 'idney. 0oth <story< (<real li7e<) and consistent artistic metamorphosis o7 this (<persona,< <pure poetry<) enter in only as they ser;e a predominantly rhetorical purpose. Astrophil and Stella8s mi?ture o7 7act and 7ancy ma1es per7ect sense in its o:n terms. 2nly under the :rong 7ormal e?pectations does it seem inconsistent. Perhaps this is the moment to con7ront another 7amous and irrele;ant problem%%'idney8s sincerity. 'idney sincerely :ants to persuade. 4is desire is sincerity itsel7. .his he is obliged to tell us and, in the 7irst 7our lines o7 , he does. All that comes a7ter ser;es this purpose. 4e ma1es poetry out o7 his e77ort to 7ind a <;oice,< to be sincere, but he ma1es poetry out o7 a good many other occasions and 7eelings and problems, too. !e can 9uarrel :ith the end in ;ie:. 'eduction, ho:e;er 7ancy the language, may be :rong. 0ut this has nothing to do :ith 'idney8s <sincerity< in trying to bring it about. !e can say that real lo;e is sincere lo;e and neither has anything to do :ith se?. 'idney :ould simply disagree, and :e should ha;e to 1iss both Astrophil and Stella good%bye. !e can say that, granted the end and the conception o7 lo;e, 'idney :as not =usti7ied in pretending to 7eelings he did not possess. 4e :ould reply that the 7orce o7 desire to change%%and 7abricate%%one8s 7eelings :as part o7 the story he :as telling. Astrophil and Stella :as about <sincerity.< .he only argument about the sincerity o7 Astrophil and Stella that might a;ail :ould be that he had not :arned us about his rhetorical purpose. 0ut he not only does this in the 7irst 7our lines, he does it again and again. .he 7orce o7 desire is continually be7ore our eyes. Bone o7 the charges :ill stand. 'incerity, e?cept as a theme, is irrele;ant to Astrophil and Stella, one o7 the non%problems that ha;e plagued the poem. 'tructure is =ust such another. .he common denominator o7 critical e?amination and speculation o7 all the ma=or sonnet%se9uences, not =ust 'idney8s, is a radical temptation to thin1, 7irst, that the order o7 the sonnets is crucial and, second, that the traditional order is unsatis7actory. Bo other 1ind o7 poem 9uite so much dra:s out the critics8 impulse to tin1er and 7iddle. Bot that the impulse, much maligned, cannot be praised. E;ery pro7essional reader o7 a sonnet%se9uence is Gealous, and rightly so, 7or a literary structure. 4e 7inds instead a rhetorical one, :here order is considerably less important. 4e then ma1es it more important by ta1ing as the arrangement :hat is only

an arrangement, and thus 1eeps 7aith :ith his te?t and author. 2r he ta1es the dilemma by the horns and rearranges. 4e has then 1ept 7aith :ith his sense o7 literary 7orm, one :hich he thin1s (again rightly) that 'idney, 'penser, 'ha1espeare :ould share :ith him. 4e does only :hat e?igent circumstance, and perhaps sloth, pre;ented their doing 7or themsel;es. !hat o7 the e?planations 7or their not doing it themsel;esH /ommon ignorance de7ends my speculation as :ell as the ne?t man8s: they did not thin1 order :as crucial. 'ome groupings, yes. 'uch smaller groupings constituted a rhetorical gesture as it :ere. 0ut the o;erall order, and e;en the order :ithin the groupings, :as not crucial. .he sonnets :ere discrete entities. 'idney8s aimed out:ard, at persuading Stella. 'ha1espeare8s turned in:ard, posturing 7or les yeux internes. 0ut each :as a discrete attempt at integration (o7 one 1ind or another). 2ne might play o77 or depart 7rom another, or a group 7rom a single incident, but all :ere not concei;ed as a :hole. " In Astrophil and Stella the case seems especially clear. .he sonnets are :eapons, discrete :eapons, each concei;ed in the hope that it :ould be the last. .he 7orm as a :hole had no persuasi;e 7unction, could ha;e none since it :as built up seriatim, o;er time. -or the same reason, it could ha;e no ending in the literary sense o7 the :ord. It could simply stop, con7ess de7eat. .he beginning :as indeed crucial, but it :as a rhetorical not a literary beginning. It set up a ;ital conte?t 7or the rhetoric to 7ollo:. .his done, 'idney could let time and chance ta1e care o7 the <structure< and there is e;ery indication that he did so. .he :ell%1no:n desire to place + and +2 7rom Certain Sonnets at the end o7 Astrophil and Stella represents the desire 7or a literary ending rather than a rhetorical cessation. 'idney8s predicament has got, someho:, to be sol;ed. 2r at least we must be brought to a position o7 rest. All o7 this comes 7rom 7oisting an alien 7ormal e?pectation on the poem. .he structures :hich :e 7ind, then, are our o:n. 'o long as :e admit this, they are not necessarily any the less use7ul. .hey are e?ercises in :hat (urray Arieger calls <conte?tualism,< and e;en :hen they manage to say ;ery little o7 ;alue about the sonnets, they can be ;aluable 7orcing%houses 7or critical theory. 0y loo1ing at the se9uence as a potential collection o7 many structures, an in7inite series o7 conte?ts, :e can ma1e o7 it an incredibly rich 7orm. $ I see no reason :hy this 1ind o7 rearrangement should not be ;igorously pursued. Le:is sco77s that <i7 you arrange things to ma1e a story, then o7 course a story :ill result 7rom your re%arrangement< (p. +2I). 0ut you can rearrange a se9uence into many shapes besides a story, and :hate;er your shape, it :ill create more meanings 7or others than your o:n perspecti;e allo:s you to see. .his blindness to potential meaning the artist himsel7 shares. And is not the 1ind o7 tentati;e rearrangement scholars li1e to :or1 out 7or the sonnet%se9uence really o7 the same 1ind as their e77ort to :ea;e larger discrete :or1s into a coherent pattern, into :hat :e call literary historyH 0oth are, to a large degree, aleatory, but none the :orse 7or it. I7 Astrophil and Stella is, in essence, a rhetorical arti7act, it is also a)out rhetoric, and to this second concern :e must no: turn. .he ground has been :ell e?plored by 3oung. 4e remar1s o7 #@ (<I ne;er dran1e o7 Aganippe :ell<) that <by going beyond the 9uestion o7 the particular illusion, the con;entional

manner, to illusion itsel7, this sonnet ma1es e?plicit an issue implicit in the others< (p. "). 4e carries the obser;ation an important step 7urther: <!hat I ha;e been trying to sho: is that there is an analogy bet:een the technical problems presented by the literary con;ention and the dramatic problems presented by the lo;e story, and that it is not an accidental one.< .here seems to be more than an analogy. 'idney :ants to ma1e o7 his lo;e and his lo;e% poetry one thing. Stella then becomes his muse, and her charms the sum o7 all that poets e;er :rit: Let daintie :its crie on the 'isters nine, .hat bra;ely mas1t, their 7ancies may be told: 2r *indare's Apes, 7launt they in phrases 7ine, Enam8ling :ith pied 7lo:ers their thoughts o7 gold: 2r else let them in statelier glorie shine, Ennobling ne: 7ound .ropes :ith problemes old: 2r :ith strange similies enrich each line, 27 herbes or beastes, :hich Inde or Afri$e hold. -or me in sooth, no (use but one I 1no:: Phrases and Problemes 7rom my reach do gro:, And strange things cost too deare 7or my poore sprites. 4o: thenH e;en thus: in Stella's 7ace I reed, !hat Lo;e and 0eautie be, then all my deed 0ut /opying is, :hat in her Bature :rites. (+) .he logical goal o7 such a blending :ould be the obliteration o7 any distinction bet:een matter and manner, bet:een :ords and 7eelings. Stella then becomes a touchstone 7or the 9uality o7 e?perience both literary (as in &) and e;eryday. And 'idney :ishes to disclaim any desire 7or e?perience or meaning she cannot represent. "Sonnet 28" might be better attended than it has been: 3ou that :ith allegorie8s curious 7rame, 27 other8s children changelings use to ma1e, !ith me those paines 7or )od8s sa1e do not ta1e: I list not dig so deepe 7or brasen 7ame. !hen I say 8Stella8, I do meane the same Princesse o7 0eautie, 7or :hose only sa1e .he raines o7 Lo!e I lo;e, though ne;er sla1e, And =oy therein, though Bations count it shame. I beg no sub=ect to use elo9uence, Bor in hid :ayes to guide Philosophie: Loo1e at my hands 7or no such 9uintessenceE 0ut 1no: that I in pure simplicitie, 0reathe out the 7lames :hich burne :ithin my heart, Lo!e onely reading unto me this art. .he disclaimer to any larger meaning than e?pressing his lo;e may be more important than his elo9uent plea that he 7ors:ears elo9uence. !ords are to

be 7orced into absolute coincidence :ith his desire, to do it 7ull and 7inal =ustice. 'uch 7ull e?pression :ill be the most persuasi;e rhetoric o7 all. .his is one strand o7 'idney8s thin1ing about language. It must be li1e Stella hersel7, uni9ue, uni9uely e?pressi;e. 0ut he introduces a complementary strand. Language can play the common drab: <!hat may :ords say, or :hat may :ords not say, D !here truth it sel7e must spea1e li1e 7latterieH< (+&). 'uch language all the poets use. !ith them, :ords 7orce 7eeling and not ;ice% ;ersa. Does 'idney realiGe that this may happen to him, tooH 4e :ould seem to in those sonnets :here he imitates Petrarch or someone else in 7ors:earing imitation, and thus 7or the 1no:ing reader ironically ac1no:ledges his 7inal ensla;ements to :ords and the con;entional uses o7 them. 4e might also be thought to touch on the point obli9uely in @& :here he builds, on the contrast bet:een Stella8s cruelty to him and her tears at a 7able, a couplet :hich ends, <I am not I, pitie the tale o7 me.< .his, in a sense, is :hat he does in the :hole se9uence. 'idney8s use o7 his re7lections on the po:ers o7 language :or1s, then, both sides o7 the street. !hen he is direct, :e are%%and Stella is%%to thin1 this the real language, that coincident :ith real deeds, real 7eelings. !hen he is obli9ue and ironical, :e are to thin1 him using, :hile at the same time he sees through and derides, the stale clichLs o7 the rest o7 the cosmos. Rhetorically, this double strategy promises :ell. 0ut i7 :e try to tease 7rom it a coherent set o7 re7lections on language and the :ays in :hich language both enriches and sets bounds to human e?perience, :e may be less success7ul. Loo1, 7or e?ample, at one o7 the most stri1ing sonnets in the se9uence, +@: /ome let me :rite, 8And to :hat endH8 .o ease A burthned hart. 84o: can :ords ease, :hich are .he glasses o7 thy dayly ;e?ing careH8 27t cruell 7ights :ell pictured 7orth do please. 8Art not asham8d to publish thy diseaseH8 Bay, that may breed my 7ame, it is so rare: 80ut :ill not :ise men thin1e thy :ords 7ond :areH8 .hen be they close, and so none shall displease. 8!hat idler thing, then spea1e and not be hardH8 !hat harder thing then smart, and not to spea1H Peace, 7oolish :it, :ith :it my :it is mard. .hus :rite I :hile I doubt to :rite, and :rea1e (y harmes on In18s poore losse, perhaps some 7ind Stella's great po:rs, that so con7use my mind. It is a ;ery good poem indeed. 'idney8s characteristic e?cellences, the per7ectly paced, directly collo9uial ;oice, :hich controls an elaborate :ord% play, the stichomythic interlocutor, the intense, sel7%conscious re7lection upon :hat he is and :hat he is doing, the po:er7ul closing: all sho: through. And yet, i7 :e are considering 'idney as a philosopher o7 language (or o7 anything else) must :e not come in the end to agree :ith the last lineH 4e is con7used. E;en the synta?, he points out to us, starts to crumble in the couplet. Let me anticipate the ob=ections. Poets can be con7used and no :orse 7or it. .here is

3eats. .hey can, too, :rite beauti7ul poems about their con7usion. 0ut there is a larger issue in;ol;ed. 'tyle, thin1ing about language, is no small theme in Astrophil and Stella. Is the reader not entitled to 1no: :here he stands, :hat conception o7 language is really operating in the poemH And :hat relationship the deceptions o7 language really bear to human e?perienceH "Sonnet 34< ne;er tells us :hat the relation bet:een strong 7eeling and the compulsion to e?press it really is. Bo more does the se9uence as a :hole. 'idney raises the point but does not resol;e it. It may be, in the larger sense probably is, beyond resolution. 0ut surely a consistent set e;en o7 implications :ould enrich the poem. Again one must in;o1e the poem8s essentially rhetorical strategy to e?plain the de7iciency. 'idney8s thin1ing about language is a tool (the doubleedged s:ord o7 rhetoric), li1e his thin1ing about e;erything else, to be used not pondered. 'o too it is :ith the pro;erbial popular :isdom. 'idney con7ronts it. 4e sees that it :ill not do. It is mani7estly inade9uate to cope :ith e?perience, as anyone can see :hen he simply =u?taposes the t:o, as in &. 0ut :e cannot say that he transcends it. 4e con7ronts desire, he con7ronts the ambi;alent, lying heart o7 language, but he goes beyond neither. Bor does he coherently relate them one to another. .hese are 7antastic ob=ections, o7 course. Loo1 :hat he does do. 4e ma1es o7 his o:n desire the great poetic representation o7 Desire in English. 0ut because his purpose remains rhetorical throughout, he can neither anatomiGe desire, as 'ha1espeare does in <'onnet 2",< nor 7ollo: it through consummation into middle age, as 'ha1espeare does in +I. 4e cannot yo1e desire and the censor in a brilliant philosophical pun, as 'ha1espeare8s daGGling +& does. Bor, o7 course, does 'idney attempt any o7 these 'ha1espearean purposes. Beither meditati;e nor philosophic, Astrophil and Stella begins and ends in the begging mode.