Poetic (In)Stability

Chicago, Ill.—
In 16th century England, before the rules of English solidified, a group of poets organized themselves under the moniker of Areopagus in order institutionalize “quantitative verse” and other poetic dictums. Leah Jonas, author of “The Divine Science,” asserts that the Areopagus desired to “harmonize the native medieval with the classic tradition, in its attempt to defend poetry against the accusation that it was a wanton, deceitful art” and to “restore the poet to his ancient elevation, in its consideration of vocabulary, of metrics, and of types.”

“Critics debate how official and organized the Areopagus was,” said Professor Laura Dietz at a 2007 Modern Language Association panel. Dietz asserts that the work of the Areopagus “symbolizes the desire shared by most 16th century poetics adherents—a desire to codify and regulate English melodic practices.” “Quantitative verse symbolizes the achievement of not only a fixed, stable linguistic system, but also a fixed, stable political system,” said the Angelo State University professor. She added “for many of these 16th century Aeropagites, the line that demarcates the barbarian from the civilized is a poetic one.”

The debate between qualitative and accentual syllabic verse, and between different styles of writing, became as much a commentary on the nature (and antecedents) of government. For example Thomas More’s Utopia served to question whether private property existed under natural law, concludes R.S. White in his book Natural Law in Renaissance Literature. “Consequently, poetry’s civilizing and politically stabilizing effects inevitably lead to political discussions about what political structures are backed, and how England’s [government systems] are shaped by political and therefore poetic structures,” said Professor Dietz.

According to some scholars studying 16th century literature, the line between law, policy, and poetry became exceedingly hard to delineate during this era. Perhaps most famously, 16th century lawyer George Puttenham wrote in The Art of English Poetry that poets “were aged and grave men….they were the first lawmakers to the people, and the politicians, devising all expedient means for the establishment of Commonwealth, to hold and contain the people in order and duty by force and virtue of good and wholesome laws…” White argues that the inspiration for this parallel came largely from the intermingling—and sometimes, dual careers— of lawyers in 16th century Britain. The Mirror for Magistrates “more than any other symptom, testifies to the amalgam of poetry, law and statecraft……most of the writers who contributed historical poems to this monumental collection were attached to an Inn of Court in the capacity of professional lawyers,” White writes. He also argues that Puttenham’s career as a lawyer and poetic apologist “epitomizes” this intertwined culture.

Radical Anachronisms?

In his chapter on rhetoric, White seeks to parallel the revolution of rhetoric of the Renaissance with the allegedly positive effects of postmodernism. “It is an understanding of rhetoric that allows feminists, Marxists, and deconstructionists, in their very different ways, to sharpen our awareness that language can inevitably carry… manipulative value assumptions,” he writes. He adds “It is at least arguable that we are, at the end of the twentieth century, living through a revival of rhetoric as important as the Renaissance’s. Even if the actual terms and forms of rhetoric may change, the underlying rationale does not, and this is being rediscovered” (emphasis added).

Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.