McEvoy-Halston I

PatrickMcEvoy-Halston

English359S01

Dr. R. M. Schuler

28 March 2002

Critical Movements

Sir Philip Sidneyrefersto Utooia asa'lerfect way of patterninga Commonwealth"

(117), which might, to ris, easilybe understoodasa referenceto Sir ThomasMore's exploration

of Utonia's utopiu-rrru-,i., to book two of Utooia. It is.afterall in book two whereMore,

throughhis characterRaphaelHythloday,unfoldsboth for his createdcourtly listeners.dndfor

us)'thenatureof this ideal commonwealthcalledUtopia. But Sidneydoesnot limit his attention

in his Defencesolelyto fine exarrplesof worts of poesy. Sitlney,in making a defencefor

ernbattledpoesy,attuactsour attentionto the importanceof attendingboth to poesy'saudience

andto poesy's'lnaker," the poet,in evaluationsof a work's poetidworth. .{!!r our own

acquaintancewith Sidney'sseveralexamplesin the Defencewhich depictthe interturinedmatrix

of the poet,his poesy,andhis public, rveknow that not oneofthese threeelernentsshouldbe

i.-i-
l:!j , (detached in favourofanalysing knowingthatSidneyrefers
anyoftherlin isolation.Therefore, r
f . ".r.n't
to the '\rhole Commonwealth'(117) asthe particularaudiencehe hasin mind for More's work, r
t
/)'
', ! n 'ft,- ' t . - r t
.t4

with our "erectedwit" (Sidney 109),we do not ultimately misconstrueUtooia's first book asof I .1
.' " -,
.llt''

secondaryimportancefor our evaluation.The gentlerrenin book one are,after all, debatingthe

plausibility of "conecting erors" (7) in their "own cities,nations,. . . andkingdoms" (?)-,Still,

we leaveourselveswith two possibleavenuesof' investigationwhich leadto two opposite

, .'i ',
/ ' !, a "'."''1, 1

findings: if, fallingpreyto our'oinfected

will" (Sidney109),we makethemistakeof following
l ,

, 1: l,
our initial impulseandfocuson the secondbook,wejudge Utopiaasnot fully satisffing

Sidney'srequirementsfor poesy,that is, we cannotimagineourselvesbeingmovedto imitate

 McEvoy-Halston 2
'
:
;'
Utopiansor their coilrmonwealth;hbwever,assumingSidney'sDefenceworksto "move . . . us
^ , , ' : 'l *
l-': , L?
to do that which we knoy;: (SidneyI23), with both booksin mind, we find that More very well
!

"practice[s] what Sidney preaches"(Schuler2), i.e., he creates,in Utopia, a work which might

just effect the considerablefeat of helping to improve a whole commonwealth.

',,-
Before exploring the basis for our investigation.of Utopia--what Sidney believes a poetic
:r r'

work to be--wemustfirst acknowledge thatthe nature

'. of the relationshipbetweenthe poet and
-i\ ,'.
hisftreraudienceis not entirelyabsentasa $&i€€L,for-our*eonternplation in book two of Utopia.

Admittedly, a teller, Raphael,as well as More's createdcourtly listeners,,arein a sense

':
"there"
ln '4 i ",^,;' 7/t3'-r'l' "''f: {' -? f ,' :l-'"

the text's prime subjectsfor our consideratioqat

throughoutbook two, but theyonly emerge/'as
L.- -l
theendof thework. Compared
to thebulk of whatconstitutes with
booktwo,andcompared ' I'

whatbookoneprovides,we areofferedbut a s+trreto-fthem. Thissnippetof Ra.phael

and,in .
'1tt','/:1 ( 'ir'/' '"/:1
' i1lp,1 ;' .': tI'zi'-':
particular,his listenerthe characterThomasMore engagingwith eachother,is indeedworthy of
^t.-"t ''
"'i";
/
our notice;but, consideringthe buik of what constitutesbook two,.wemay only lanowto take

notice if we havenot misconceivedbook one asa'1nere" intoduction andthus oflittle import.

Somethingsimilar canbe saidof Sidney'swork: ifwe give scantattentionto how Sidneybegins

his DefenceofPoesy, perhapsimaginingit as"simply''a deviceto persuade(fool?) the readerto

explorefirther, we arelikely to forget to properly attendto Sidney'sJobnPieto Pugliano.If we

areguilty of this "sin," we areaptly punished: we would miss discoveringhow this key example --

ofSidney's helpsunlock the real worth of Utooia asa poetic work.

Sidneyboth direcfly andindirectly tells us how poesyworks andwhat it doesseveral

times in the text, usually in combinationwith atterrptsto distinguishpoesyfrom two other

"disciplines"--philosophyandhistory. In the midst of his argumentin which he promotespoets

over philosophers,Sidneytells us that 'qtheinward light eachmind hath in itselfis asgoodas a

philosopher'sbook" (123), andthat'tn naturewe know it is well to do well, andwhat is well

 McEvoy-Halston 3

andwhat is evil" (123). Becauselearnedmen alreadyknow whatthe philosopheraimsto teach

them,Sidneydeemspoesysuperiorto philosophysincepoesyworks to move"learnedmen . . .

to do that which [they] . . . know, or to be movedwith desireto know" (123). Poesymoves

,
i-,----''
men;to Sidney,thatis whatpoesydoes.

In his refutationof the philosopher'sclaim of superiorityto the poet,Sidneyalso

indirectly suggestswhat poesyis--thatis, what it is aboutpoesythatmakesit movemen--by

drawingattentionto the mannerin which philosophersmoyllr1 Hepresenlsy,.fwitn a "perfect

'i

picture" (Sidney 116) of moral philosophersstepping forth to challengehim.""rudely clothed for

to witness outwardly their contempt of outward things, with books in their hands against gloty'_
:
I
(l l3). /As Sidney claims that poesyis superiorto philosophybecauseit would o'winthe goal"

(l 16) i, O**eneral preceptand by particular example,;if*, turn to the secondbook of Utopia

y2
with the detailsof this imageof moralphilosophersin ou minds,fwebelievethat Sidney's

visually strikingimageof the particularphilosopherinhibitsus from learningfrom More's

"generalnotion"(Sidney116)(i.e.,the overallconception)
of Utopia'smoralphilosophy.

More tells us that the Utopianmoral philosophyis not disdainfulof pleasure,evenof

sensualpleasure(56). They in fact 'think it is crazyfor a man to despisebeautyof forn"(56).

However,Sidney's-exampleofmoral philosophers,becauseit excitesour sensesand createsa

lastingmemoryfor us to draw upon,conflicts with andultimately overwhelmsthe impression

this "fact" hasuponus. His examplg in fact, works to *draw ouf'details in the text which

complicateany easyassumptionon our part that the Utopiansarebestunderstoodasenjoying- ,

L,r, /1:
'
ratherthan asbeingbarely tolerantof-sensual pleasures.For examplg we ooticethai More | .,
.,,,
introducesthe sectionon moral philosophyby telling us how Utopiansare"amazedat th , 2* , ",
" . j..
,,:,

foolishnessof any man who considershimself a nobler fellow becausehe wearsclothing of a :'!.' .

speciallyfine wool" (4S),whereinwe hear"echoes"of Sidney'spoorly clothedphilosophers

, ,:'
 McEvoy-Halston 4

oiticizing glory. Furtho, thoughwe aretold that the Utopianstakepleasurein outwardthings,

we arenow primed to attendto the thingsthey takelittle visual pleasurefrom, suchasgold and

silver, andlittle olfactory, or gustatorypleasurefrom, suchasfood or drink. Sarcasticallywe ask

ourselveswhat remainsfor themto takein "earthly'' delights? Sincethey take suchpleasurein

^
music,the privileged portal mustbe.theirears;andtheir eyes,thoughthey igrore the glitter of . ,
.."..,i'. t':-..r'' ,
,
preciousmetals,do marvel at the sta$ (48). But again,anotherof Sidney'sperfectpicturer \. - -
'i

"emerges"from our memoryandinfrudesin our readingof the text: Sitlneyhas!r imaginingr. .

tlreg asfoolish philosopherssobusy admiringthe stars,and attendingto "celestial" music,that

they'lnight fall into a ditch . . . " (l 13)!

True, itmay be arguedthat it is misleadingto focus on Sidney'sridicule of thosewho do,

after all, "by knowledge[seek] . . . to lift up the mind from the dungeonof the body'' (Sidney
.
113), when,referring to "lhe mostbarbarousand simpleIndians" (105),he scomfully refersto

these"lndisns"' need"to find a pleasurein the exerciseofthe mind" (105) lest "their hard dull

with the sweetdeli$ts of Poety''(105). In Utopia"so.

wits [arenever] soften{ andsharpened
,,-ts,zt : , _ !' .-. /..

theargument sincewe alsohave"Indians"but who"[o]fall thedifferentpleasures

proceeds, ...

mostlythoseof themind" (More55),surelyconsidering

sep.k Sidney'sdisparaging
remarks
.,, i ' .- . j. .'!-c. " I.. t'. .- , rt:'')
concen:ing"Indians" in the Defence,we arelikely to atterd foremostto this discrepancy

betweenSidney's"fact" andMore's "fiction" while fomrulatingou1impre_

ssionof the Utopians.

Exactly: we both attendto andwonderat {ris quriosiq6ana,as@ryilt soo-nexpandupon, not

being childre,n,we believe ourselvesunmovedby it. Instead,Sidney'simageof the simply

'
:'"
clothedpriggish philosophers,becauseofits humorousexaggerationofa selectionof

characteristicswe,--beingof a time whenphilosophershave"falle,n"(Sidney 103)"from almost

the highestestimationof leaming" (Sidney 103)--mightalreadybe inclined to associatewith

philosophers,changeshow we encounterthe Utopians: we imposea clearandvivid counter

 \ - / .t, t r'-
:

r)

McEvoy-Halston

imagewe composefrom More's descriptionsof the Utopiansthat

imageon the amalgamated

asaestheticandpractical-minded.The
makesthemseemat leastasprudishandabsent-minded

resultis that they seemlessworthy of our ernulation,andour conceptionof Utopia asa poetic
lr

work is thereby lessened. /

Irl "-,
Sidneyoffersanotherdefinitionof whatpoesyis whenhe attemptsto demonstrate
-7t
poesy'ssuperiorityto history. Herehe doesso throughthe useof a precept:poesydoesnot-tfo- :,
n
/ !': / '
t,

"inquisitiveofnovelties fwhich makes

whathistorydoes. History's fashioners--historians--ade
\'-'
,l
t,
them]. . . awonderto youngfolks" (114). Qlul.4rd, whenwe turn to More's exampleof d
,.,.
utopia,we notethat eachsectionhasthereina particularnoveltyseeminglydesignedto both

attractour attentionandto makeus wonder. Within the section"Their Work Habits,"we learn

that they devoteonly six hourseachday to work (38)! Within the sectiontitled "Socialand

BusinessRelations,"we learnthatmen at markettakewhat they want without payment(41-42)l

Within the section"Travel andTradein Utopia," we learnthat "anyonewho takesuponhimself

to leavehis districtwithout permission. . . is severelypunished. . ." (45)! And we mustnot

forgetto mentionthe two mostnotableexamplesof More's methodof highlightingnovelties.

Within the sectionon gold andsilver,we learnthatthesemetalshavesuchlittle value("which

L/.

k47))that all of
othernationsglve up with asmuchagonyasif they werebeingdisemboweled"

the Utopianschamberpots aremadeof thesematerials!And within the sectionon marriage

customs,we learnthatbrides-to-beareshownunclothedto their groomsasa meansof ensuring

.t. -t.. .'

happilymarriedcouples!ti Thir utopiadoesdo a numberof thingsSidneybelievesgoodpoesy

time (114). It is obviouslynot

doesandthathistorydoesnot do. It is setin a contemporaneous

or evenis ( 120). It doesoffer us an exampleof a 'house

limited in conceptionto what 'owct.q"
',/
t The text evendemonstrates from us by precedingits
herethat it both anticipatesandexpectsandxijiie-d-)eaction
presentation "they
with the comment, solemnlyandseriouslyfollow a cirstomwhich seemedto us foolish and
absurdin the exffeme"(61).
 McEvoy-Halston 6

well in model"(116),thatis, a well thoughtandthoroughpresentation

ofa harmonious
society,
/
.,'for our considerationand oitiqueTBut, leamingfrom Sidneyto be watchful of our own reaction

to odd noveltieswhich might capturea child-like mind, it is difficult for us to imagineourselves

asinspiredenoughto either createa betterworld (bemovedto do), or to leam more aboutthe

Utopians(bemovedwith desireto know) after our encounterwith More's fic$onal .'

t"f ''-
.. ' "'.,'
".,', : "' / ' ''
h*t'i,^, : J
c o m m o n w e a l t h( 1
. ' - -' l r l*I ,' 7
r'1t,r
. .,.-
.r"!r, :j'J 1t s'.'t't ".'. .'.'
J r r : T - 4 | : i . . r j : 2 , , ."
l .r-.---,
^ '' . '.r
t
However, our ev'afriationof how well Utooia conforms to what Sidney beliwes po".y it {'

and how it works should not be influenced by our own reaction to More's work. Furthermore,'
' : '".'
"
J

we ought to take care not to believe ourselvesunmoved simply becausewe think we have not
"'
beenaffectedby a work-i.e., therep?,y bg diJcordbetweenwhat we know (gnosis)andhow we ; , .,

actuallybehave(praxis). We will now both explainandexplorethe importanceof thesetwo

self-administeredcheckson our initial rushto judgrnent,towardsa way of seeingUtopia as

n
t' tt'^t ) tt;t

servingratherwell asaTpoetifwork.
,
; ^'- .
Sidneydoesnot believethat a work canbejudged aspoeticbeforenoting its effect on its

intendedaudience;andwe, thoughleamed,arenot the particularaudienceSidneyhasin mind

when he praisesMore's work. Admittedly, Sidneydoesgive somesupportfor a conceptionof

poesywhich assumesthat a certainreactionnecessarily,predictably,andrmiversallyfollows

from experiencinga work ofart. He usesthe authorityof Aristotle, andAristotle's judgrnentof

poesyasconcemed'\rith the universalconsideratiorf'(119),to help enhancethe persuasiveness

of his argument.However,' he alsotakescareto tell us that, accordingto Aristotle, "the universal

(,+ {o br
l:--' --
weighswhat/is saidor done" (119),which, thouglrlitoally meaningthat ererything saidor done
/\ /.'','t. t' t 4 '':

\, is waluated againsta constantfiutl, at leastimplies th/well reasonedsl4e of mind of th9'noet

v

who takesnote of the inconstansieshe seesandhearsabouthim. Sucha mind is Sidney's,who

we "see" refer to the effect poesyhason leamedmen,and"heat'' wam of the effectsofbad

 McEvoy-Halston 7

poesy--bare,
unimprovedhistory--hason uninformedandinexperienced
listeners.Sidney

that whatmight movea learnedmanmight borea child,just aswhat might move a

understands

child would ill-pleasethe learned.Sidneyteachesus that ajudgmentof a work aspoesy

necessarilyinvolvesattendingto the natureof the particularsortof audiencea particularwork of

poesyis designedto affect.

Indeed,we, asreadersof the Defence,knowingits examplesandarguments,shouldnot

brjg_rtlruryrd asto focusour attentionon Utopia'ssecondbook. W;, instead,attendto

Sidney'sreferenceto Utopia in the Defence;notethat Sidn"yp.uirrs More for fashioninga work

which would aid the particularlearnedmanbestplacedto shapea commonwealth;andknow to

judge Utopia asan exampleof poesyon its likelihoodof moving sucha man to eithermakethe

attemptor to learnmore asto how bestto do so. We arewell directed,then,to considerbook

l'/
asthe subjectof influenceat court constitutesits
oneof Utopia inmaking our assessment,

primaryinterest.

We mustacknowledgethat Sidneydoesnot refer specificallyto Utopia asa good

examplewith which to influencea prince;rather,he saysit is a goodexamplewith which to

A t t-\''"'":
inspirea'khole Commonwealth"(l l7). However,in Utopia,whenMore (throughhid cbaracter

arguesthatfor Raphaelto ma<imizehis influencehe shouldaim to servea prince,we are

Yool
v^',{',offereda characteizationof the importanceof a princewhich shouldinfluenceour readingof

Sidney'sintendedmeaninghere. More says,"a people'swelfareandmiseryflows in a stream

from their prince,asfrom a never-failingspring"(8). More definesthe princeasthe sourceof

societaldestructionand reconstruction.Sidneyboth naturally,asan Elizabethancourtier,andby

example,with his affernptto promotepoesyasthe sovereigndiscipline,unlesswe assumethat

Sidneyis radicalenoughto imaginethe poetasbeingableto bypassthe king andeffecta

transformationof a commonwealththrougha directappealto the people,showsthathe shares

 McEvoy-Halston 8

More's conceptionof the princeasthe ultimatesourceof anyreinvigorationof a commonwealth.

Sincethe princehasadvisorsfor the purposeof informinghisjudgmenton, for example,matters

,,
of policy, we believe the advisor to a prince the particular audienceSidney has in mind when he

praisesMore's Utopia. If the just mentioned radical alternative seemstoo tempting to leave

unexplored, to help weaken its appeal,we refer our readerto Sidney's praise for poesy's ability

to "beautiry" (121) historians'recitationsof "counsel,policy, orwar stratagem"(121), wherein

we hear ofboth counsel and policy in a passageabout the good service of advisersto "princes."

Of course,Raphael doubts some aspectsof More's charactenzationof the prince--for instance,

he thinks a prince is best understoodas someonewho makes wars, not commonwealths (8)--

which, if we believe his account of princes over More's own, might have us imagine a prince as
tr','

completetV in Utopia.Sucha princemightfind something in theUtopians'war

ffierested
stratagems andeveninspireshim,butthissortof inspiration
thatinterests leadssolelyto the

not to their reconstruction.Raphael,though,nevercallsinto

destructionof cofirmonwealths,

questionthe actualpowerof a prince. His disagreement

with More concernsthe dispositionof

the prince,andthereforealsothe effectiveness

of virtuousadvisersat court--asubjectwe will
''1,
, /t t _.

ytth Iateron.
tobor, oyrrsefves

Sidneyoffers-us of anencounter
anexample a would-bepoettryingto affecta
between

learnedman--Sidney, himself--in the Defence; in fact, such an encounterservesas his

introduction to the work. hr the exordium, Sidney tells us of his encounterwith John Pi"O?,
.
'-ilii '

Pugliano,ffid of Pugliano'sattemptto "enrich" (102) Sidney'smind asto the greatness

of hif

(Pugliano's)placementasequerryat EmperorMaximilian II's court. From attendingto Sidney's

accountof his own reactionto Pugliano,we notethatthe learnedmanis well awareof man's

natureto enjoy self-flattery,of the lengthof time a teller takesin tellinglls_ta$ andof the
i

possiblerelation of teller to listener as one of masterto servant(102).,Guilty of telling a drawn

 I
Ptl":
t;--*'.- " i'
i.
r: -:" fte
McEvoy-Halston 9
ti'

out tale which is intendedto promotehimselfandto demeanothers(to makethemwant to be '

horses,ratherthantheir riders(102)),Puglianois presentedasan exampleof the ineptpog(.qot

both our considerationandcontemplation.

\

Beforewe compareSidney'sreactionto Puglianowith how we might imaginea sortof

learnedman--onewho hopesto influencea prince--reacting

to Utopia'sRaphael,it is important

to notethat Sidneyclearlydoesnot want to introducehis argumentby boringhis audience.That

poetry'sworth by engagingandfamiliarizinghis learned

is, sinceSidneywantsto demonstrate

that the learnedenjoybeing partyto the playful

audiencewith poesy'sart, he obviouslyassumes

ridicule of foreign(Italian),9i9*-g.r the learnedman,aswith Sidney,alsoenjoys

Presumably,

thathe hasnot beenmoved,not been"persuaded"(SidneyI 02-103),remaining

demonstrating

composed,contemplative,andcritical of both the "poesy''andthe "poet" afterhis encounterwith

though,thatthis psychicstancecanbe deceiving-thatthe learnedman

them. Sidneysuggests,

canbe movedby "bad" poesy. Sidneyby exampledemonstrates

thathe is himself sufficiently

movedby his encounterwith Pugliano's'bad" poesyto makeit the introductionto his Defence;

andhe impliesthathis experiencewith Pulgianoseryes,alongwith the poor regardpoesyis held

in, asa "spring-board"from which to investigatethe nafureof "good" poesy.

The mostprominentexamplesSidneyoffersof "good" poesydraw our attentionasmuch,

or more,to the "poet," andthe e{ct he hason his audience,asto his "poetic" tale. We do not

encounterin the DefencelengthylryWy_tif poesy;Sidney'smethodis insteadto wow us with

the abilitiesof a "singular"individual,like MeneniusAgrppa, who, "thoughhe behaveshimself

like a homelyandfamiliar poet" (I25), so "masters"his audiencethat he creates"sucheffectin

the[m] . . . that words. . . broughtforth so suddenandso goodan alteration"(125). Why is this?

If we notethat the effectof Agrippaon tli;-J"rans is asexaggeratedly

characterizedas

Pugliano'spurportedeffecton Sidney(thatit almostmakeshim wish himselfa horse(102)),we

 McEvoy-Halston 10

seea pattern: Sidney'saccountof Agrippaandthe Romansmakeshim comparablein his n,-

'
l'/
(' ,'t',/

storytblling "ineptness" to Pugliano. Indeed, in his Defence, Sidn'ey,lwarns

us early on that he, as

us with examplesof his "strongaffection"(103)(i.e.,his

with Pugliano,is presenting

enthusiasticdesireto peluade) @g!1gg to tl5: gt"qtionof "weak arguments"(103)(i.e., over-

ripe accounts)out of goodmaterial. Unlike Pugliano,Sidneyos

"ineptness]'is del,ipergtely I

'":* /
'
fashioned to move his learned readersto embracehis argument. Sidney's learned
'
, 'tr

might, at first, think mostof the argumentpurefolly; judge it asunpersuasive--

contemporaries,

especiallythe claim that the playful poetis monarchoverthe portentousphilosopher!;but

ultimatelyfind themselvesrevisitingthe memorablypresented(with its humourandits daring)

defencein their minds,in their memory andfinding someusein practicefor the ideasSidney

hasput forth. In sum,modiffingan expression

of Sidney's,w€ cansaythatto Sidney "a

(120),atleastwith
asmuchforcetoteachasa ['good'] . . . exulmple"
['bad']. . . examplehath

the learned.

It is in book oneof Utopiathat the learnedreaderwho prideshimselfon his

insusceptibilityto foolery,perhap$dueto beingo'apieceof a logician" (SidneyL02)himself,

likely notesthe discrepancybetweenthe natureof a teller andhis tale. The Utopians,who

in his Republic"(26), are

"actuallypractice"(26) "the kind of thing that Platoadvocates

describedin book two asbeingrootedto their isle: it is their minds,"in their diligenceand zeal

to seetheworld" (5), is a sailorwho,

to learn"(30),which "move" about.Yet Raphael,"eager

evenafterencounteringthe Utopiansandclaimingto be so impressedwith themthathe "would

neverhaveleft" (29),remainsa manforeveron the go, living, oshe tells us, much ashe pleases

(7-8). The learnedman,knowinghis Greek,is sureto takepleasurein understanding

why

RaphaelHlhloday is to be understood,in pd, asa "speakerof non-sense."As with the

Defence,this likely leavesthe narator--whoin this caseis alsothe charu.t#fnomas fufor.1l*no

 McEvoy-Halston 11

remainsa sceptic,ffid who remains,in part,unmoved,unconvinced,at "story's" end,asthe "/''-

personthat the learnedreaderis mostlikely to sympathizewith andimaglnehimself as.

At the endof book two, More tells us thathe would like to challengeRaphaelon a point,

but, notingthat Raphael'.wastired of talking" (84), andasMore remainsunsurewhether

Raphael"could takecontradictionin thesematters"(84),he placateshim with praiseandleads

him to dinner. This odd "foreigr" storyteller$gfagl, with his over-lenqthytale consistingof

interestingthoughoften absurdideas,andwith his clownishimperialpersona,clearlyis a delight

to More. Raphaelis harmless;he is not glventhe authorityto win his argumentwith More that,

to the likes anddislikesof a court,it is impossibleto give

evendeliveredwith skilful attendance

goodideasa fair hearingat court. Instead,muchaswith Sidney'sPugliano,wo learnthat a good

way of deliveringnew ideasandto get listenedto by courtiers,is to framethemwithin a story

asan Italiancourtier,andfine horsesin the Defence,or

dealingwith topicsof clearinterest--such

of "strangepeoples"andtheir "strangeworlds" in Utopia--butto create"room" for the learned

listenerto "distance"anddistinguishhimselffrom the teller andhis tale,so thathe doesnot

imagineour would-bepoet as"monarch"(Sidney123)andhimselfas'osubject."Goodadviceto

win the ear,mind, andheart,of an advisor,as well asfor him to gainthe attention,consideration,

andinspirationof a prince. "Entertain"(More 7) the prince,andoffer him a "supplyof

examples"(More 7) to discard,andhe mightjust keep"a few" with him--perhapsto help re-

invigoratea "fallen" (Sidney103)coillmonwealthonceconsideredworthy of the "highest

estimation"(SidneyI 03).

Utopia,if we includeboth its first andsecondbooks,is well framedto both entertainan

advisorandto inform his addressto a prince. It is alsowell stockedwith suggestions

which

might be refinedinto promisingpolicy changeswith which to improvea commonwealth.

Utopia r,sa work of poesy. And, if we considerthe sortof literaturethat follows Utopiain
 McEvoy-Halston 12

comedies(with
EnglandsuchasSpenser'sFaerieOueen,ffid Shakespeare's
sixteenth-century

their "greenworlds"),it may well be thatSidney'spreceptfor goodpoesy,alongwith More's

fine exampleof it, movedat leastsomelearnedmento attemptto influencea "prince." Their

"prince," after all, unlike Raphael'ssketchof a princefrom which somuch followed,wasboth

acquaintedwith andinterestedin muchmorethansimply "the artsof war" (More 8): Elizabeth

thereaftermaintaining--astablecommonwealth
wasvery muchinterestedin re-constituting--and

out of onedividedby (religious)strife. .

/ .,/ __7l) -
-T_
Onelast thing needsto be addressed w9 p?4: we haveo.ntt explqinedwhy yj '
bgp_re_

believethat, aftera closelook at both of Utopia'stwo books,we find Utopia colrespondsto what

Sidney,by both whathe directlystatesandby whathe indirectlyshows,believesqualifiesa

work aspoetic [e havetold you-weknow to inform ourjudgmentwith a closelook at both

booksof Utopia,ffid haverevealedthe conclusionwe believefollows from this; however,we

havenot exemptedourselvesfrom wilfully preferringto stick \y{h our initial impulse,andmake

sincewe
primarilybasedon Utopia'ssecondbook. Why is this? It is because,
our assessment

that we were
only claimedthat we learnedfrom Sidney'sargument,ffid only acknowledged

movedby its parts,not by its entirety,to makesuchan assessment

would requirean exploration

not of how well Utopia satisfiesSidney's"definition" of whatpoesyis, but rather,how well

Sidney'sDefenceitself "works" asa poeticconstruction.That is, we would needto explorehow

I :;"
it4al.,ll,rt

well the Defence itself moves us to do what we now knowto do. We will gladly explore this
.\.
' '"(' '
with you, but at anothertime, as we have already talked so much, kept you ov__e:long,
and

burdened you with many novelties. And besides,we feel sure that "another such . . . opportunity

will presentitself some dat'' (More 85).

 McEvoy-Halston 13

Works Cited

More, SirThomas. U@. Trans. RobertM. Adams. 2ndd. NewYork: Norton, 1992.

Schuler,RobertM. 'oTermEssay." University of Victoria. Spring. 2W2.

Sidney,Sir Philip. Sir Philip Sidney: SelectedProseandPoetry. Ed. RobertKimbrough. 2nd

ed. Madison: U of WisconsinP, 1983.

P"xt# to a<c'n *ffi^w'

^ P'H uz',t'7--a'2tu'art
a''
*')*"4?4 fn '*; !f)t
-h,fi l""n *A
r*-^oq----,2,5ffiL4,
....,e,!& " *
ffi" n^ 4- -;^r"n '/t 'T^'Za*+ t^
- ",rZt
*-;;;
a-a-..,,tnar. '/n""a/
o' n--^)^"i /
aa'l .
'7^? ,
: ?'
tr;""4f
\-', ,'n'
fu^t 4' Y:-:
7hu1 '\**^n
er1,,'<
n *:*'7
**r 4tc*
tur,,w\,
Wr,,<e4, L
/^o- .w r/+Latu--
&*J*':*;tr t/*t #+F-"*
A- C , f;.&'
d-"L*&'' a' Ap-*.* <T *ffi1 f .{
r+.4qn'lr:*f .:,ffi,ih
, -;t A **.o r-e ,,r,,r"e,r'-!2\,4,!t* i.e"*r-e

{:'u.Jk:T^;*P'ryt2V
dll !""A ("i
ritn]
ujt,'*,'t'
u,-vr4y 7 t^ s #on
"\'To,r*-*;T':"

A/ea