Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:13:45.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Direct Source of the Pamela-Cecropia Episode in the Arcadia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Constance Miriam Syford
Constance Miriam Syford*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Spenser-Sidney scholarship has for some time been concerned with the problem of the sources of the Mutabilitie Cantos, of the Garden of Adonis passage in the Faerie Queene, and of the Pamela-Cecropia episode in the third book of the Arcadia, with reference to their expression of natural philosophy. Miss Albright, Miss Wilson somewhat briefly, Miss Whitney, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Levinson have rejected as vaguely remote, or have tried to break down completely, the theory of definite influence of Lucretius. These scholars have, in effect, built up a kind of vari-colored stone wall against Lucretius and against all the emphasis of Mr. Greenlaw's careful researches, tip-toeing around the wall to Empedocles by way of Du Plessis Mornay, and then coming back again to Cicero in his De Natura Deorum, or to Ovid, or, finally substantially neutralizing the whole exhibit by the neutral-toned tendency to fall back upon the theory of general Renaissance culture and commonplaces as the only determinative source of influence. Must we, however, leave the problem at this point? Or is there a very definite, direct source?

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1934 , pp. 472 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The entire group of scholars and of articles to which I refer are quite familiar. I cite, therefore, only the most outstanding and important:

Edwin Greenlaw: “Spenser and Lucretius,” Stud. in Phil., xvii (1920), 439 ff.; “The Captivity Episode in Sidney's Arcadia,” Manly Anniv. Papers (1923), 54–63; Mutabilities, PMLA, xlv (1930), 684 ff.

Lois Whitney: “ Concerning Nature in the Arcadia,” Stud. in Phil., xxiv (1927), 207 ff.

Ronald Levinson: “Spenser and Bruno,” PMLA, xliii (1928), 675 ff.; “The ‘Godlesse Minde’ in Sidney's Arcadia,” M.P., xxix (1931), 21 ff.

Evelyn May Albright: “Spenser's Cosmic Philosophy and his Religion,” PMLA, xliv (1929), 715 ff.

H. M. Beiden:“Alanus de Insulis—‘Mutabilitie’ Cantos,” xxvi (1929), 142 ff.

T. P. Harrison: “The Relations of Sidney and Spenser,” PMLA, xlv (1930), 723 ff.

W. P. Cumming: “The Influence of Ovid's Metamorphosis on Mutabilities,” Stud. in Phil., xxviii (1931), pp. 241–256.

Mona Wilson, “Review of Sidney's Arcadia by Zandvoort,” Rev. of Eng. Stud., vi (Oct., 1930), No. 24.

Josephine Waters Bennett: “Spenser's Garden of Adonis,” PMLA, xlvii (March, 1932), pp. 46–81.

2 Correspondence of Sidney and Languet, ed. Stuart Pears (London, 1843), pp. 9, 24.

3 Whether Sidney had then already received or did then finally get the French edition of the Moralia, by Amyot, or not—though I am personally convinced that he did have Amyot's Moralia by 1579—there can be no question, I think that he had and had used the Latin edition by Henry Estienne, published in 1572. Estienne dedicated his Greek New Testament to Sir Philip in 1576, and his edition of Herodian in 1581. He sent to Sidney, also in 1578, his three-volume edition of Plato. It is fairly certain, then, that Sidney used Estienne's Moralia. Furthermore, the edition of Estienne became, actually, the standard, rather than that of Amyot, for Estienne's erudition was such that he drew not only upon Amyot, but upon the Aldine Greek edition of his master, Turnebe, with its marginal annotations and variant readings—also upon the translations of Xylander and of Cruserius—ready, both, c. 1570. Once Estienne's edition appeared, these others became dead. There is a very interesting study of a little known version of the Moralia, containing much upon the above-mentioned versions: Reinhold Dezeimeris (Bordeaux: Gounouilhou, 1904).

Note.—My conviction that Sidney did have Amyot's Moralia in 1579 comes from a very thorough study in which I have found that Sidney shows considerable dependence upon Amyot's Preface to his Lives of Plutarch. This comparative study, made in 1930, I am reserving for incorporation within a larger study I hoped to have published by 1933.

4 Sir Philip Sidney, The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia. Ed. M. Feuillerat (Cambridge Univ. Press), in The Complete Works of Sir Philip Sidney, i, 404–411.

5 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Opuscula varia; quae magna ex parte sunt philosophica: Vulgo autem Moralia opuscula nimis augusta apellatione vocantur. … Edited by Henri Stephanus, 1572, Latine Tomus I, pp. 594–595. There is an excellent, close translation by C. W. King, publ. by Geo. Bell and Sons, London, 1898, Bohn Class. Libr.

6 Op. cit., p. 602; King transl. p. 19.—I refer to the Latin text as H. Stephanus, Plutarchi Opuscula Varia, and I shall give English text citations from the London edition of King.

7 H. Stephanus, Plutarchi Opuscula Varia; p. 630, par. C ff.: King, p. 57.

8 Ibid., p. 282, par. A ff.; King, p. 259.

9 Ibid., p. 286, par. C ff.: King, p. 265.

10 H. Stephanus, Plutarchi Opuscula Varia; p. 293, par. C ff.; King, p. 275.

11 Sir Philip Sidney, The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, ed. A. Feuillerat, (Camhr. Univ. Press, 1912), i, 402.

12 Sidney, as cited above, The Arcadia, p. 406.

13 Ibid., p. 407.

14 Ibid., p. 407.

15 Opuscula Varia, De Iside et Osiride: p. 616, par. B ff.; King, p. 38.—Amyot translates this “crux” sentence cited above in (1) very badly. It makes rather clear the fact that Sidney did not have in mind or before him the French text. For Amyot has “pource que Dieu n'est point cause d'aucun mal.” The Latin of Estienne, like the text of King, reads: “cause of nothing.”

16 Arcadia, p. 408.

17 Opuscula Varia: De Defectu Oraculorum; p. 707, par. C ff.; King, p. 103

18 Ibid., p. 708, par. B; King, p. 104.

19 Ibid., p. 708, par. B ff.; King, p. 104.

20 King translates “oratione” as Reason, in distinction from “ratione” as sense.

21 Opuscula Varia: De defectu Oraculorum, p. 708, par. D p. 709 ff.; King, p. 105.

22 Opuscula Varia: Ibid., p. 709, par. C; King, p. 105–106.

23 Ibid., p. 709, par. D 1.8, p. 710, 1.6; King, p. 106.—In this passage, it may be noted, King translates “individua corpuscula” as “atoms.” Pamela seems to mean the same as Plutarch when, speaking of the idea of Chance gluing the “pieces,” she refers to the “heavie” and the light “partes.”

24 Arcadia, pp. 408, 409.

25 Opuscula Varia: De Defectu Oraculorum, p. 710, C ff.; King, p. 107.

26 Ibid., p. 710, D ff.; King, p. 107.

27 Ibid., p. 706; C ff.; King, pp. 101–102.

28 Opuscula Varia: De Defectu Oraculorum, p. 707, C ff.; King, p. 103.—I quote only the vital portions of this passage, to show its synthesis of the three essential points which Pamela treats, viz. (1) a Reason presiding over all; (2) accidental collision of worlds of Chance causation; and (3) “unused power” or “waste.” It has been quoted before, by me, under my ii on p. 9. I repeat even these portions only to show another instance of the abundance of material afforded Sidney, for his passage in the Arcadia. The use of (1) to disprove (2) and (3), and of (2) and (3) to prove (1), in both Plutarch and Sidney, argues something more than accident.

29 Arcadia, p. 409.

30 Ibid., pp. 409–410.

31 Opuscula Varia: De Def. Or., p. 709, B ff.; King, p. 105.

32 Arcadia, p. 410.

33 De Iside et Osiride, p. 588, B ff.; King. pp. 1–2.

34 Ibid., p. 622, B ff.; King, pp. 46–47.

35 De Iside et Osiride, p. 635, C ff.; King, p. 64.

36 Ibid., p. 637, B ff.; King, pp. 66–67.

37 Ibid., pp. 637–638, D ff.; King, p. 68.

38 Opuscula Varia: De Iside et Osiride, p. 638, C ff.; King, p. 68

39 Opusculo. Varia: De Def. Or., p. 711, C ff.—p. 712, A ff.; King, pp. 108–109.

40 Arcadia, p. 407.

41 Arcadia, p. 408.

42 Opuscula Varia, De Superstitions, p. 286, D ff.; King, On Superstition, p. 265.

43 Arcadia, p. 406.

44 De Iside et Osirida, p. 588, B ff.; King, pp. 1–2.

45 Opuscula Varia: De Superstitione, p. 282, A ff.; King, p. 259.

46 Arcadia, p. 410.

47 Opuscula Varia, De Iside et Osiride, p. 640, C; King, p. 70.

48 Ibid.

49 Arcadia, p. 410.

50 Opuscula Varia, De Ei Apud Delphi, p. 656, A; King, On the E at Delphi, p. 194.

51 I quote the words “courtesy, ”and “dwindling residuum” from a recent unconvincing article of Mr. Ronald Levinson: “The ‘godlesse minde’ in Sidney's Arcadia,” Mod. Phil., xxix (August, 1931), pp. 21–27.

Note.—My initial delvings into Plutarch in connection with Sir Philip Sidney were made at the suggestion of Dr. John Milton Berdan. Sidney's indebtedness to Amyot's Preface to the Lives, discovered in 1930.