best acquainted with Euripides, though typical plays of both Sophocles and Eschylus had been included in his reading. Of Plato and Aristotle I speak under another head, that of Sidney's Theory of Poetry. Here it is sufficient to say that the dialogues of Plato which he had apparently studied with most care are the Ion, Symposium, Phædrus, Sophist, Phædo, and Republic, and that he was conversant with at least the Poetics and Ethics of Aristotle, and perhaps with the Rhetoric.

The incidental mention of such authors as Solon, Tyrtæus, and others, proves nothing as to Sidney's personal knowledge of their writings. Many of these names, like those of Orpheus and Musæus, were freely introduced into literary works and learned discussions, merely on the strength of similar mention of them in ancient writings of a relatively late period, and the commonplaces concerning them are therefore to be expected in any sixteenth century pamphlet or treatise on the subject of poetry or literary history. But there are others, such as Herodotus and Theocritus, whom Sidney mentions in such a way as to lead us to believe that he knew them otherwise than from mere hearsay. Even the Greeks of the post-classical age were not beyond the pale of his curiosity, as is shown by his praise of the romance of Heliodorus.

In his quotations from the ancients Sidney is frequently inaccurate. We should not infer that in this respect he is singular among the Elizabethans; Bacon, not to mention others, does not always adhere strictly to the phraseology of his author. Such inaccuracy is of doubtful interpretation in an age not distinguished for scientific exactness. It may indicate either a deficiency or a plenitude of scholarship, and our decision in favor of the one or the other should depend upon collateral evidence. Evidence of this nature is not altogether wanting as respects the fulness and essential justness of Sidney's learning. It is found in his general

mastery of a difficult subject, but also in his manner of handling, and as it were playing with, some of the quotations he employs. Now he changes the form of a verb from the second person to the first, in order to appropriate to himself a citation from Horace. Again for two nouns he substitutes their antonyms, that he may adapt a line from Ovid to his purpose. In these and similar cases his learning seems to be so entirely at command that he can mold and twist it to suit all the vagaries of a sportive humor. Less conclusive is his amplification of the famous apostrophe in the First Oration against Catiline (53 24, note). Here, in his endeavor to illustrate a rhetorical artifice, he appears to extend the quotation in order to make the illustration more telling. Unless the Elizabethan text of Cicero differed materially from that now accepted, this variation must be laid to the account of dishonesty or to that of a treacherous memory. No one who has formed an opinion concerning Sidney's character would accuse him of deliberate dishonesty, and hence we have no alternative except to suppose that his verbal memory was at times untrustworthy. All things considered, the accuracy of his learning could probably be impeached, and has perhaps often been surpassed, by the best of our contemporary writers; yet it is none the less true that the extent of his reading, and the degree to which he rendered the substance of books tributary to the expression of his own convictions and essential manhood, might well put to shame many who are rightly esteemed his superiors in technical and minute scholarship.

Sidney refers to numerous contemporary humanists, Italian, German, French, and English, whose names it would be tedious and unprofitable to enumerate, especially as they are all contained in the Index of Proper Names. An exception must be made in favor of the elder Scaliger, to whose Poetics Sidney's indebtedness is not inconsiderable. In Italian literature his range is from Dante to Ariosto, and in English

from Chaucer to his personal friend Spenser. How lively was his interest in Italian authors we may infer from his friendship with Giordano Bruno, and the terms in which the latter dedicates to him two of his important works. Sidney read Spanish with ease, as we may infer not only from his imitation of Montemayor, but from his use of Oviedo, though it is just possible that the latter may have been accessible to him in translation. With respect to poetry there appears to have been a substantial identity of opinion on many points between himself and Cervantes, and, in a less degree, between himself and Lope de Vega. Of his love for all that illustrated the riches of the English tongue, and of his ardent desire that the glories of its literature should be still further enhanced, these pages furnish ample proof.

Finally, Sidney was a diligent and enthusiastic student of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, both in themselves and in commentaries upon them. Not only did he endeavor to guide his life according to their precepts, but he delighted in them as literature. His appreciation of the poetry of the Bible is shown by his translation of the first forty-three Psalms, and not less by his glowing, yet reverent, estimates of the parables of Christ, the hymns of Moses and Deborah, the dramatic poem of Job, and the lyric or didactic compositions of Solomon. In the Sacred Writings he discovered something that corresponded to every element of his manhood, and while their beauty and sublimity enthralled his æsthetic sensibility, he was ready to acknowledge in them a diviner efficacy which transcended the efforts of the human spirit to fathom, as when he exclaimed upon his death-bed, "How unsearchable the mysteries of God's Word are!" (Fox Bourne, p. 512.)

4. STYLE.

Sidney has sometimes been called a Euphuist. This term has been so loosely employed that it would be unprofitable

to examine the appropriateness of the designation without first defining what is to be understood by Euphuism. Fortunately, substantial unanimity has been reached by the competent investigators of the subject, and it is possible to utilize, without lengthy beating of the air, the labors of a scholar who is recognized as one of the foremost expounders of the modern theory of Euphuism. This authority, Dr. Frederick Landmann, has formulated the law of Euphuism in the following brief sentence (Euphues, Heilbronn 1887, Introduction, p. xv, note): "I consider transverse alliteration in parisonic antithetical or parallel clauses as the indispensable criterion of the presence of Euphuism."

This sentence is enigmatic in proportion to its brevity, and demands a commentary to make it intelligible. The commentary, which will be extracted from the same work, adds to the criterion already given a third peculiarity, which Landmann seems to regard as inferior in importance to the one, or rather two, comprised in the sentence already quoted (Landmann, pp. xv-xvi): "We here have the most elaborate antithesis not only of well-balanced sentences, but also of words, often even of syllables. . . . Even when he uses a single sentence, he opposes the words within this clause to each other. When we find a principal and a subordinate clause we may be sure that two, three or all of the words of the former are opposed to an equal number in the latter. This we call parisonic antithesis. The second class of elements peculiar to Lyly's style are alliteration, consonance, rhyme, playing upon words, and the use of syllables sounding alike. These embellishments he uses to point out the respective corresponding words in his antithetical clauses. It is not continuous alliteration as we have it in almost every writer of the sixteenth century from Surrey to Spenser, which was condemned by Wilson, Puttenham, and others, but transverse, as it has been very aptly termed by Weymouth e.g. Although hetherto Euphues I have

shrined thee in my heart for a trustie friende, I will shunne thee heerafter as a trothles foe.' The third distinctive element of Euphuism is the tendency to confirm a statement by a long series of illustrations, comparisons, exempla and short similes, nearly always introduced by 'for as-'; these he takes from ancient history and mythology, from daily life, and, last but not least, from Pliny's fabulous natural history, translating Pliny literally in the latter case."

Landmann's opinion concerning Sidney's style is based upon the Arcadia, and it is in this, rather than in the Defense, that we should expect to find the distinctive marks of Euphuism. Notwithstanding, Landmann denies that Sidney belongs to this school (p. xxx): "But we see that Sidney avoided Lyly's artificial combination of parisonic antithesis with transverse alliteration, as well as his absurd similes taken from Pliny; in other words, the most characteristic elements of Euphuism." The statement concerning the similes from natural and unnatural history is confirmed by the quotation from Drayton, cited in the note to 54 12. In only one sentence of the Defense (2 24-27) is there any indication to the contrary, and this I surmise to have been intended as a parody of Gosson's manner (see the note on this passage).

The stylistic peculiarities of Sidney's romance Landmann comprehends under the term Arcadianism, which he thus describes (p. xxviii): "The elements of style in Sidney's Arcadia are different from those of Euphuism. In brief, they consist in endless tedious sentences, one sometimes filling a whole page, in the fondness for details, and in the description of the beauties of rural scenery. Instead of Lyly's exempla and shortened similes with 'for as so,' we here have minutely worked out comparisons and conceits couched in excessively metaphorical language, quaint circumlocutions for simple expressions, and bold personifications of inanimate objects. Besides, Sidney is fond of playing upon words, and is not averse to simple alliteration."