Thanks to Anne (and of course the article's authors, June and Paul
Schlueter) for drawing this to everyone's attention. The TLS didn't
help. It was sitting on my kitchen table waiting to be looked at, but
no mention of Mary Sidney on the cover. Odd that.
It's a really exciting discovery. A few thoughts and questions (not
very joined up, for which apologies) about the article follow. First of
all, I think it would be pretty hard to argue against the attribution of
the longest poem to Mary Sidney. And it alone would be a really
interesting addition to the canon. The other four seem more problematic
to me, though.
It's a shame the authors of the piece don't tell us more about the
manuscript. Apparently it was 'created c. 1641'. The MS is described
as a 'verse miscellany', so presumably there are lots of other poems in
it (the ones here are said to be on fols 50-57). But then the authors
say 'If we are correct in attributing the five poems in that
miscellany...'. So I'm confused. Are there other poems? What comes
before and after? What other authors? What is the context? Why have
these five poems been deemed a cluster? Provenance? Etc. It would at
least be reasonable to suppose that if these are poems written before
1621 (when Mary Sidney died) and copied in the 1640s, then some
corruption through transmission may have affected them. There are
indeed lines where sense is hard to make or metre is awry. And one
might then also suppose that the 'sonnet' apparently promised in the
first piece's title, 'The Countess of Pembrokes meditation & sonnet',
(if it is indeed a separate piece) might have become detached in
transmission (and remember that 'sonnet' need not mean what we now call
a sonnet).
Certainly I don't think that title works for the sonnet that follows,
which is unrelated and clearly connected to the second sonnet that
follows it. Both are about Kiddington. Yes, it is very close to
Ditchley, so maybe there is a Mary Sidney visiting Henry Lee context
there, as is suggested. But the article doesn't say who lived at
Kiddington Hall, and it's surely more likely that those poems were
written by someone staying there. The house was lived in by a family of
Brownes, it seems. More research to be done there, but a connection
with William Browne (and his authorship) might just as well be possible.
I don't think it's right to say that 'the tone, imagery and diction of
all five reveal a voice that is consistent within the cluster'. I'd say
'The Countess of Pembroke's meditation & sonnet' very much speaks the
language of Mary Sidney's psalm translations, and in their style. The
three nature sonnets have a great deal in common with each other and
little poetically in common with that longer poem. And the elegy is
also sui generis. They might still be by the same person of course.
In trying to show connections between the three sonnets and Mary Sidney
the article finds points in common with 'The Dolefull Lay'. That's
problematic, since that poem is either by Spenser or a piece of
Spenserian writing by Mary Sidney. Which is again to say that style is
to an extent a function of genre.
The three nature sonnets are all Petrarchan, all with cdecde sestets.
Mary Sidney writes two sonnets (Psalms 100 and 150), each with cdcdee
sestets, Sidney's favourite variant, ending with a couplet. Robert
Sidney never uses this cdecde sestet pattern. Mary Wroth and Philip
Sidney use it once each. That's one more reason why I don't see Mary
Sidney writing those sonnets. They are an odd kind of poem too. The
contemplative nature poem – hardly something you'd associate with
Elizabethan poets. Perhaps others have more to say about that genre.
The elegy could be by Mary Sidney. I'm not sure I could imagine her
insisting to her own detriment that 'thou wert his heire | Phoenix
Sydney's, the world hath no such paire'. But then the elegy does seem
to namecheck two of Mary Sidney's poems, so maybe.
Very much looking forward to hearing what others – and especially
Margaret and co. – make of the article.
Gavin
|
