“contempt of outward things; with books in hands
against glory”—and, as well, the historians—whose “old
mouse-eaten records” serve to impose themselves “upon
other histories, whose greatest authorities are built upon
the notable foundation of hearsay” and who are “better
acquainted with a thousand years ago than with the pres-
ent age”—to be many rungs below poets. Sidney’s valua-
tion is that “one giveth the precept, and the other the
example.” The philosopher gives the precept and the his-
torian the exemplum, but the poet “performs” both tasks,
giving precepts and exempla.
In Sidney’s Defense, poesy’s principal concern is to
present speaking pictures that do not merely expound
a precept or offer examples from history; rather, these
speaking pictures present what ought to be “shunned”
or “followed.” Hence, they are akin to the prescriptive
moral tracts that were as much concerned with politi-
cal circumstances as with moral context. Ultimately,
Sidney’s Defense is concerned with establishing the
poet-humanist within the state while elevating his art
by virtue of “necessary consequences” on personal
conduct in the heroic and dramatic arts.
In Defense of Poesy, Sir Philip Sidney attempts to
reestablish the authority of poetry in a distinctly socio-
political fashion in order for its structures to command
obedience and to have “necessary consequences.”
Authority itself is usually secured by either a transcen-
dental concept, such as religion, or a phenomenologi-
cal concept, such as a monarchy, or by an abstract but
defi ned domain. To endow poetry with authority, Sid-
ney had not only to overturn traditional hierarchies
that fi gured the poet as a deceitful aesthete—unaware
of the source of his knowledge—against the historian
and moral philosopher, but also to reendow words
with secular weight. ELIZABETH I demanded loyalty and
service in a courtly rhetoric that subsumed the lan-
guage of courtship and CHIVALRY (based in deferred and
enforced self-governance of desire). It did not tolerate
any instruction or counsel that implied a usurpation of
royal power and prerogative. In the Defense of Poesy,
what Sidney offers instead is a counter to the queen.
FURTHER READING
Arendt, Hannah. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in
Political Thought. New York: Penguin, 1961.
Plato. The Republic. 2nd ed. Translated by Desmond Lee.
New York and London: Penguin, 1974.
Sidney, Sir Philip. “The Defense of Poesy.” In Sir Philip
Sidney, edited by Katherine Duncan-Jones, 212–250.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Christine GilmoreDELIA (OVERVIEW) SAMUEL DANIEL (1592)
Delia was fi rst published in 1591 and appeared in a
volume of poetry containing 28 of SAMUEL DANIEL’s
SONNETS and a stolen quarto of SIR PHILIP SIDNEY’s SON-
NET SEQUENCE, ASTROPHIL AND STELLA. Sidney had been
dead for fi ve years, and the Sidney family was under-
standly affronted by this unauthorized printing; conse-
quently, the volume was withdrawn. Nevertheless,
Daniel was not held accountable, and a year later he
republished Delia with A Complaint of Rosamond, dedi-
cating it to Sidney’s sister, MARY SIDNEY HERBERT, count-
ess of Pembroke, in attempt to secure her PATRONAGE.
Scholars have suggested that the fi rst clandestine print-
ing was a tactical maneuver on Daniel’s part because he
chose the same printer for the reprint, thus negating
his previous claim of embarassment.
Daniel uses the ENGLISH SONNET pattern for his son-
nets. At one point, a CORONA occurs as each last line of
the COUPLET begins the fi rst line of the next quatrain.
Daniel also adopts the structure of the Spenserian son-
net for fi ve of his poems, which would suggest, as
scholars note, that throughout the numerous revisions
of Delia, Daniels was privy to EDMUND SPENSER’s
AMORETTI (1595). As well, critics have identifi ed Son-
nets 9, 15, 29, 30 as translations or adaptations of
Philippe Desportes’ sonnets to Diane (1573), Sonnets
18 and 22 as borrowed from L’Olive (1549–50) by
Joachim du Bellay, Sonnet 16 from PETRARCH, and Son-
net 31 from Torquato Tasso. Other sources cited by
critics include Luigi Tansillo and Giovanni Battista
Guarini. Despite the fact that he paraphrased from his
sources, the end result is original work. Delia adopts
Petrarchan CONCEITs; however, unlike other sonnet
sequences, it does not follow a dramatic progression
but instead is rhetorical in form. As well, Delia alludes
to mythology, but as one critic notes, there is an essen-
tial difference between prior and contemporary refer-
ences to myths in love poetry. Daniel inserts his142 DELIA