class distinction, 1590s, duelling, code, gentleman, nobility, peasant, peer

<< previous   next >>

40

between earls and gentlemen [and] the respect inferiors ought to their superiors.

(p.40) Elizabeth imposes a class distinction here that Stone claims to have become blurred by the code of duelling by the 1590s, and therefore one that had become conspicuous roughly within a decade of when the incident took place. According to Stone, the emergence of the code of duelling curbed lords’ freedom to behave with disregard for their inferiors, since single combat deprived them of the advantage of being able to back themselves up with superior numbers of retainers. ⁷⁴ Sidney’s haughtiness towards Oxford perhaps reflects this emergent softening of class differentiation, whereas Elizabeth assumes a conservative attitude as a strategy meant to defuse the argument when she reminds Sidney of “how the gentleman’s neglect of the nobility taught the peasant to insult upon both” (p.40).

It could even be supposed that the enforcement of class distinction to end this quarrel led Sidney to turn to an alternate means of redress by engaging Oxford in a wit-combat. Greville considers Sir Philip to have had a legitimate grievance and maintains that although Oxford was a “peer of this realm” and Sidney only a gentleman, in ordering Sidney off the court, Oxford “forgot to entreat that which he could not legally command” (p.38). From Greville’s point of view Sidney, as a soldier and a gentleman, had good reason to find an alternate way of repaying this slur upon his honour. Oxford’s verse is turned back upon him as a statement of ill will as follows:

⁷⁴ Stone (1965), p.245.

<< previous   next >>

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.cultureandrhetoric.net