The+Countess+of+Pembroke's+Authorship

The Countess of Pembroke's Authorship Mary Sidney Herbert’s works range from psalm translations to pastorals, poems to tragedies. Many of her works have been brought into question in terms of their authorship. The speculations of the critics are interesting to note because they give insight into the credit that Mary was not given for her writing in days past versus the acclaim that she has met in recent times. Due to Mary’s constant collaboration with and revision of Philip’s work, the question of authorship arises frequently with her contributions to his work. As a result, her work on //The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia// and //The Psalms of David// has often been attributed to Philip or any number of the other editors of his unfinished works. There are many indications throughout the works that she contributed to them, especially by the way that the aformentioned texts seem to comment on Philip's life and neglect the subjects on which Philip typicaly fixated.

// ﻿ ﻿ The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia //

This tome of pastorals was begun by Sir Philip Sidney “as early as 1577” (Evans 10). His part was finished in 1580, but after Philip’s death in 1586, the work was passed on to the Countess of Pembroke herself. Although Philip may have considered his work complete, writing in his dedication page that if the work had not been given to Mary it “would have grown a monster,” others did see it as a finished work. Since Philip meant it to be for Mary, “only for you, only to you,” it can be assumed that the “deformities” that he acknowledges to be in his work were never imagined by him to be things worth correcting. Once Mary released her brother’s work to the rest of the world, it became a playground for many peopl to dissect and reconstruct his work. Sir William Alexander was one person who worked on Sidney’s //Arcadia// and his contributions are known. Much of the rest of the texts authorship is still in question today.

Mary’s authorship in this work was questionable in the past because of the many people, known and unknown, who may or may not have revised, added to, or subtracted from it. This questioning was ballooned by the fact that, as a woman, it was unexpected that she would be capable of such writing. There are ways that we can today infer what parts were written by her and what parts were written by her brother. First, the original version can be compared to Mary’s version to a certain extent. Secondly, there are parts of the Arcadia that are written with a point of view, tone, or context that can lead us to assume what parts were her contributions. There also are variations in writing style and form that may be used to differentiate the text. This is of course more speculation than research, but gives insight into how much of the work may be owed to Mary.

At times, it seems like Mary Sidney Herbert is addressing her brother, his death, and his entanglements with Queen Elizabeth. After Philip spent his life writing self-deprecating poetry, some parts of the //Arcadia// seem like the type of advice that an admiring sister might tell her brother. Pamela tells Dorus of Mopsa that “’she is not worthy to be loved that hath not some feeling of her own worthiness’” (225). Mary, who thought so highly of Philip, might have felt that he may have been more deserving of the love of Penelope and the Queen had he recognized his own worth more. The characters here reflect this sentiment. In chapter 18 of the Arcadia a commentary on Philip by Mary can again be found as a woman speaks of Pamphilus:

‘For never was there man that could with more scornful eyes behold her at whose feet he had lately lain, nor with a more unmanlike bravery use his tongue to her disgrace, which lately had sung sonnets of her praise; being so naturally inconstant as I marvel his soul finds not some way to kill his body whereto it had been so long united.’ (336).

This quote again seems to reflect how someone who knew Philip may have viewed his switches in allegiance between Penelope and Queen Elizabeth. It also gives an opinion on how Philip managed to immortalize his embattled feelings for these women in his writings.

 ﻿ ﻿ A women’s point of view is used occasionally in the text in a way that makes Mary seem to be the more likely writer. At one point the Arcadia details embroidery in a way that is nearly unimaginable to imagine Philip has having an understanding of or respect for. Later, Pamela and Crecopia discuss virginity and marriage, reflecting ideas that go beyond Sidney’s obsession with pain and pleasure, the section ending with Pamela sticking with her virtues. The representation of women defends the pride in holding onto the virginity of women, which is a contrast to Philip’s typical anger that women wouldn’t give in to his wants. In terms of writing style, one major difference is how Mary focuses on the outward while Philip has an inward focus. Mary uses nature and interaction between characters to expose the emotions of the characters and herself. Philip focuses on what is going on in his mind and heart, engrossed in himself in a way that shows in how he writes his characters.

// ﻿﻿ // //The Psalms of David//

Whilst reading the psalms the switch from one author to another is most readily seen in the change of styles and word choice. Themes of one writer versus another can also be seen. Philip’s psalms are written quite uniformly; Mary uses unique rhyme schemes and varying structures, such as in psalms 52 and 119. In psalm 119 it becomes apparent that Mary is testing a new method of psalm writing in her decision to have each grouping of stanzas begin with a different letter. The authorial intents of Philip and Mary differ in ways, with Philip more interested in expressing his anger towards his enemies and the women that are out of his reach, while Mary focuses on inheritance and politics, more outward subjects. Although it is readily seen who wrote what, especially since there was a distinct cutoff for Philip at the 44th psalm, Sir Philip Sidney has been treated as the sole translator of the psalms.

On the side of translating, reworking, and adding to her brother’s works, Mary wrote works on her own. Despite their separation from her brother’s work, at least one was still plagued with claims that it was the work of another male writers of the same time period. "The Doleful Lay of Clorinda"



With "The Doleful Lay of Clorinda" there is again a questioning of authorship, but this time it is between Edmund Spenser and Mary. Numerous critiques of the poem have named either of these people as the writer, but today it is recognized that it is Mary Sidney Herbert's. Speculation on whether it was the writing of Spenser or Mary is explained in part by Charles G. Osgood. He writes that the poem was attributed to Spenser in the past in part because it was “doubtful that Countess Mary could have achieved its ‘peculiarly Spenserian effects of rhythm and melody’” (90). This was disputed by the fact that the writing styles weren’t identical. It can also be disputed by examining the content of “The Doleful Lay of Clorinda.” 

-Alania Johnson Works Cited Herbert, Mary Sidney and Philip Sidney. The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia. London: Penguin English Library, 1977. Print. Osgood, Charles G. “The ‘Doleful Lay of Clorinda.’” Modern Language Notes. The Johns Hopkins University Press 35.2 (1920): 90.