SIR PHILIP SIDNEY

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31730, 13 July 1968, Page 4

SIR PHILIP SIDNEY

Sir Philip Sidney The Shepherd Knight. By Roger Howell. Hutchinson. Notes, index. 308 pp. “Farewell the worthiest knight that lived. Farewell the friend, beloved of all, that had’st no foe but chance!” These were the words of the .crowd watching Sir Philip ' Sidney’s funeral procession, and his literary biographers have commonly echoed this adulation without questioning just what the young knight had done to merit such popu-

lar acclamation. He had received his knighthood on purely formal grounds, he was ■too rash and headstrong to be a success as a diplomat, he had repeatedly incurred official disfavour, and his major i literary works were as yet unpublished. Professor Howell suggests that a political history of Elizabethan England might easily be written

without once mentioning Sidney’s name. Why, then, was he so popular? Roger Howell is a historian, and his attempt to evaluate Sidney in answering this question is cautious and methodical. He begins by demonstrating that Sidney was closely acquainted with many of the theologians, scientists, explorers, statesmen, and writers of his day, and through them acquired extensive popularity and appreciable influence. The question thus becomes: how did such a young man and inexperienced man gain such powerful connections? No doubt Sir Henry’s position and his mother’s ancestry (the Dudleys had promoted Lady Jane Grey) aroused great expectations among the populace for Philip—but surely the intellectuals would be above such influences? Men like Ramus, Bruno, and Gentili would value the patronage of an English aristocrat, but Languet, Campion, Ronsard, de Baif, Wechel, Etsienne, and Sturm had no need for such a contact. Some of these were also Protestant activists, but they could easily have chosen a more diplomatic representative than Sidney. Faced with these difficulties, Howell is forced to conclude that the decisive factor was Sidney’s personality—a last resort that is not wholly convincing. The book ends with Hotman’s tribute, “He was untouched by any man’s envy or detraction, so that he might deservedly be called the darling of the human race.” This amounts to little more than a restatement of the initial question, and the reader is left with the impression that he is dealing with a paradoxical figure like Wilde, a social enigma. At times, however, Howell seems to approach a more plausible explanation but for some reason does not develop it. He alludes to Sidney's role in the Whit Monday tournament, of 1581, but prefers to discuss the episode in terms of relations with Alencon rather than as a demonstration of Sidney’s social significance. His references to Sidney’s function as “that great shepherd” seem continually on the verge of penetration, but remain inconclusive. Howell is not at ease when dealing with anything literary or allegorical that does not admit of a historical explanation, and he is thus reluctant to commit himself on themes such as the shepherd figure. In spite of this, his analysis of “Astrophel and Stella” is very helpful, simply because it is free from the usual speculation. It is only in his sparse remarks about Spenser that his level-headed method lets him down: he appears to misinterpret the “Astrophel Elegies,” and his claim that Spenser was “past the formative stage by 1579” is surely questionable. This is not a book destined to be burned in the marketplaces; it is not a book that will be used to support radical dispute. Professor Howell’s consistently cautious and objective approach marks this book as one that will become “safe” reading as a background to Sidney.