Sir Philip Sidney
Sir Philip Sidney
’s’sAn Apology for Poetry
An Apology for Poetry
Sir Phillip Sidney was a courtier, soldier, statesman, amateur scholar and a poet in his days of Sir Phillip Sidney was a courtier, soldier, statesman, amateur scholar and a poet in his days of the 16
the 16thth century. In our context of literary criticism, he is known for his essay namedcentury. In our context of literary criticism, he is known for his essay named An An Apology for Poetry
Apology for Poetry, where he both explores the core concepts and answers to earlier criticism, where he both explores the core concepts and answers to earlier criticism of poetry. The text itself deals with three major topics: The dignity
of poetry. The text itself deals with three major topics: The dignity – – or power or power – – of poetry andof poetry and the addressing of general critique a
the addressing of general critique against poetry, especially those of Plato, and an examinatigainst poetry, especially those of Plato, and an examinati onon of the current state of English literature
of the current state of English literature11. In this essay I will provide some background for . In this essay I will provide some background for Sidney
Sidney’’s literary criticism and explore these topics, and see how it fits with similar theories.s literary criticism and explore these topics, and see how it fits with similar theories.
We need to go back in time for fully understanding the background that Sidney wrote his text We need to go back in time for fully understanding the background that Sidney wrote his text against. While Plato (ca. 427
against. While Plato (ca. 427 – – 247247 B.C.E.B.C.E.) did not write any explicit literary theories, he) did not write any explicit literary theories, he
criticized poetry through his texts, mainly
criticized poetry through his texts, mainly Ion Ion andand Republic Republic. This was based on a scepticism. This was based on a scepticism regarding poetical representation of forms or ideas, as this would distance one from the regarding poetical representation of forms or ideas, as this would distance one from the timeless ideals. In the idea-world of Plato, every physical chair is a copy of the mere idea of timeless ideals. In the idea-world of Plato, every physical chair is a copy of the mere idea of the chair, and a drawing of that chair is a copy of a copy of the original idea. This model the chair, and a drawing of that chair is a copy of a copy of the original idea. This model applies to poetry in the same way
applies to poetry in the same way22, and for Plato (or Socrates) was not poetry any form of art,, and for Plato (or Socrates) was not poetry any form of art, but merely
but merely ““a form of divinely inspired madness.a form of divinely inspired madness.””33 But PlatoBut Plato’’s and Socratess and Socrates’’ critique againstcritique against poetry must be seen in
poetry must be seen in the light of the societthe light of the societ y they lived in, where it y they lived in, where it was common belief was common belief ““thatthat poets know all crafts, all human affair
poets know all crafts, all human affair s.s.””44On the other hand, Aristotle, PlatoOn the other hand, Aristotle, Plato’s pupil,’s pupil, took onetook one step further in area of literary criticism by writing a text about poetry itself,
step further in area of literary criticism by writing a text about poetry itself, Poetics Poetics. In this. In this text he explores poetry, but most important, he defines it as a craft.
text he explores poetry, but most important, he defines it as a craft.
An
An Apology fApology for or PoetryPoetry (1595) was written in a 16(1595) was written in a 16thth century renaissance literary climate thatcentury renaissance literary climate that was concerned about the aesthetic problems regarding the object and purpose of poetry was concerned about the aesthetic problems regarding the object and purpose of poetry ’’ss representation. Therefore, Sidney
representation. Therefore, Sidney’’s definition of poetry as a craft or s definition of poetry as a craft or ““art of imitationart of imitation”” isis highly relevant, but not original, as it draws heavily on a number of theorists, all the way back highly relevant, but not original, as it draws heavily on a number of theorists, all the way back to Aristotle.
to Aristotle.55
1 1
Vincent B. Leitch,
Vincent B. Leitch, The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism , Norton 2001: 324, Norton 2001: 324 2 2 Ibid: 33 Ibid: 33 3 3 Ibid: 35 Ibid: 35 4 4 Ibid: 36 Ibid: 36 5 5 Ibid: 324 Ibid: 324
When Sir Pilip Sidney wrote his essay, it is considered that it was an answer to the attack on When Sir Pilip Sidney wrote his essay, it is considered that it was an answer to the attack on theatres called
theatres called The School of AbuseThe School of Abuse by Stephen Gosson, which was published in 1579by Stephen Gosson, which was published in 157966. This. This text draws upon the arguments of Plato
text draws upon the arguments of Plato’’ss Republic Republic, and therefore, in a modern context, where, and therefore, in a modern context, where Republic
Republic is much more well-known thanis much more well-known than The School of AbuseThe School of Abuse,, An An ApologyApology can be read as acan be read as a direct answer to the
direct answer to the Republic Republic..
The answers to Plato
The answers to Plato’’s criticism can be read through the text, and early on he accuses Platos criticism can be read through the text, and early on he accuses Plato for being hypocritical:
for being hypocritical:
And Truly, even Plato, whosoever well considereth shall find that in the body of his work, And Truly, even Plato, whosoever well considereth shall find that in the body of his work, though the inside and strength were philosophy, the skin as it were and beauty depended most though the inside and strength were philosophy, the skin as it were and beauty depended most of poetry, for all standeth upon dialogues,
of poetry, for all standeth upon dialogues, (…)(…) besides besides his his poetical poetical describing describing thethe circumstances of their meetings, (…) which who knoweth not to be flowers of poetry did circumstances of their meetings, (…) which who knoweth not to be flowers of poetry did never walk into Apollo
never walk into Apollo’s garden.’s garden. ((…)…)77
While this seems like an easy attack on Plato, it leads us towards one of Sidney
While this seems like an easy attack on Plato, it leads us towards one of Sidney’’s mains main arguments:
arguments:
[N]either philosopher nor historiographer could have entered into the gates of popular [N]either philosopher nor historiographer could have entered into the gates of popular judgements if the
judgements if they had not taken y had not taken a great passa great passport of poetry [.]port of poetry [.]88
Sidney states that poetry
Sidney states that poetry – – as Aristotle labelling it asas Aristotle labelling it as mimesismimesis, representing, counterfeiting, representing, counterfeiting – – has a mission of
has a mission of ““teach and delightteach and delight””99 in several ways.in several ways.
Simply put, Sidney argues that poetry is above both history and philosophy because Simply put, Sidney argues that poetry is above both history and philosophy because ““itit combines the moral precepts of the one with the entertaining examples of the other, all while combines the moral precepts of the one with the entertaining examples of the other, all while cloaking its lessons with the pleasurable devices of art
cloaking its lessons with the pleasurable devices of art””1010 . He does that through a variety of . He does that through a variety of passages, most explicitly here:
passages, most explicitly here:
The philosop
The philosopher (…) and the historian (…) would win the goal, the one by percept, the other her (…) and the historian (…) would win the goal, the one by percept, the other by example. But
by example. But both not both not having both, having both, do both do both halt. (…) Now halt. (…) Now doth thdoth the peerless poet performe peerless poet perform both[.]
both[.]1111
Poetry is superior to the other two in teaching human virtues, but poetry as an art or craft, Poetry is superior to the other two in teaching human virtues, but poetry as an art or craft, building upon Ar
building upon Aristotleistotle’’s definition of poetry, is also superior to every other:s definition of poetry, is also superior to every other:
6 6
Vincent B. Leitch,
Vincent B. Leitch, The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism , Norton 2001: 323, Norton 2001: 323 7
7
Sir Phillip Sidney,
Sir Phillip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry An Apology for Poetry inin The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism , Norton 2001: 328, Norton 2001: 328 8 8 Ibid: 328 Ibid: 328 9 9 Ibid: 331 Ibid: 331 10 10 Vincent B. Leitch,
Vincent B. Leitch, The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism , Norton 2001: 324, Norton 2001: 324 11
11
Sir Phillip Sidney,
There is no art delivered to mankind that hath not the works of nature as his principal object, There is no art delivered to mankind that hath not the works of nature as his principal object, without which they could not consist. (…)
without which they could not consist. (…) Only the poet, disdaining to be tied to any suchOnly the poet, disdaining to be tied to any such objections, lifted up with the vigor of his own invention,
objections, lifted up with the vigor of his own invention, (…(…) not enclosed within the narrow) not enclosed within the narrow warrant of her [nature] gift
warrant of her [nature] gift1212
[T]he poet, with the same hand of
[T]he poet, with the same hand of delight, doth draw the mind delight, doth draw the mind more effectually than any other more effectually than any other art doth.
art doth.1313
In the next part of the essay, Sidney argues against specific critiques of poetry. Most In the next part of the essay, Sidney argues against specific critiques of poetry. Most noteworthy is the accusation of poets being liars, p
noteworthy is the accusation of poets being liars, p ut forward by Ovid inut forward by Ovid in Remedia Amorris Remedia Amorris::
I think truly, that
I think truly, that of all writers under the sun the poet is the least liar, and, though he would, asof all writers under the sun the poet is the least liar, and, though he would, as a poet can scarcely be a liar. (
a poet can scarcely be a liar. ( …) Now fo…) Now for the poet, he nothing affirms, and therefore never r the poet, he nothing affirms, and therefore never lieth. (
lieth. (…) The poet never maketh any circles about your imagination to conjure you to believe…) The poet never maketh any circles about your imagination to conjure you to believe for true what he writes.
for true what he writes.1414
Simply put, by denouncing the mere prerequisite for the accusation
Simply put, by denouncing the mere prerequisite for the accusation – – a poet intends to statea poet intends to state the truth (or
the truth (or aa truth)truth) – – Sidney argues that the statement is invalid. But while a poet may not beSidney argues that the statement is invalid. But while a poet may not be able to lie, Sidney does not fight the notion of poetry being abused. But that would be using able to lie, Sidney does not fight the notion of poetry being abused. But that would be using the poetry in the wrong way, in other words
the poetry in the wrong way, in other words ““that manthat man’’s wit abuseth poetrys wit abuseth poetry””1515. He elaborates,. He elaborates, and at the same time builds upon his argument of poetry being superior to other methods of and at the same time builds upon his argument of poetry being superior to other methods of teaching virtues:
teaching virtues:
Nay
Nay truly, truly, though though I I yeld yeld that that poesy poesy may may not not only only be be abused, abused, but but that that being being abused, abused, by by thethe reasons of his sweet charming force it can do more hurt than any other army of words, ( reasons of his sweet charming force it can do more hurt than any other army of words, ( …)…) that whatsoever being abused doth most harm, being rightly used (
that whatsoever being abused doth most harm, being rightly used (…) doth most good…) doth most good..1616
Later, Sidney also directly addresses Plato
Later, Sidney also directly addresses Plato’’s reasons for objecting to poetry through as reasons for objecting to poetry through a passage:
passage:
[L]et us boldly examine with what reasons he did it. First, truly a man might maliciously [L]et us boldly examine with what reasons he did it. First, truly a man might maliciously object that Plato, being a philosopher, was a natural enemy of poets: for indeed, after the object that Plato, being a philosopher, was a natural enemy of poets: for indeed, after the philosopher (
philosopher (…) [was] making a school…) [was] making a school-art of that [virtues, knowledge] poets did only teach-art of that [virtues, knowledge] poets did only teach by divine delightfulne
by divine delightfulness, (ss, (…)…) [they] sought by all [they] sought by all means to discredit their masters.means to discredit their masters.
Sidney goes on with the argument of poetry and poets being superior to philosophy and Sidney goes on with the argument of poetry and poets being superior to philosophy and philosophers,
philosophers, also also with with the the curious curious note note of of poets poets not not authorizingauthorizing ““abominable filthinessabominable filthiness”” (homosexuality) and a community including women.
(homosexuality) and a community including women.1717
12 12
Sir Phillip Sidney,
Sir Phillip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry An Apology for Poetry inin The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism , Norton 2001: 330, Norton 2001: 330 13 13 Ibid: 342 Ibid: 342 14 14 Ibid: 349 Ibid: 349 15 15 Ibid: 350 Ibid: 350 16 16 Ibid: 350 Ibid: 350 17 17
Sir Phillip Sidney,
We can easily draw some conclusions on Sidney
We can easily draw some conclusions on Sidney’’s view upon poetry. He leans towardss view upon poetry. He leans towards Aristotle definition of the craft or art, and objects heavily to Plato
Aristotle definition of the craft or art, and objects heavily to Plato’’s categorisation. Poetry iss categorisation. Poetry is not a copy of a copy of the ideal or idea; poetry may exist only for itself, as a way of not a copy of a copy of the ideal or idea; poetry may exist only for itself, as a way of conveying images. Its definition holds no boundaries for the poet, and he is free to use any conveying images. Its definition holds no boundaries for the poet, and he is free to use any means for creating images. The images used by the poet may represent the nature, or be means for creating images. The images used by the poet may represent the nature, or be superior to the representation given by nature, or only be the poet
superior to the representation given by nature, or only be the poet ’’s creation.s creation.
In the context of the history of literary criticism, we can see Sidney
In the context of the history of literary criticism, we can see Sidney ’’s influence in Percys influence in Percy Bysshe Shelley
Bysshe Shelley’’s later texts later text A Defence A Defence of Poetryof Poetry (1840). But while the two theorists seems to(1840). But while the two theorists seems to have similar opinion on the surface, like the one of poetry combining images with teaching, have similar opinion on the surface, like the one of poetry combining images with teaching, and the poets being the earliest authors; teachers of religion and prophets. Shelley argues and the poets being the earliest authors; teachers of religion and prophets. Shelley argues famously that the poets are the ones that invents and develops the language, the famously that the poets are the ones that invents and develops the language, the ““unacknowledged legislators of the Worldunacknowledged legislators of the World””1818; the poetry exists; the poetry exists – – and therefore languageand therefore language – – asas an extension of the human creative mind, not the rational. This is not unlike Sidney
an extension of the human creative mind, not the rational. This is not unlike Sidney ’’s theoriess theories about the poet being the only craftsman and artist that is not limited by boundaries set by the about the poet being the only craftsman and artist that is not limited by boundaries set by the nature. Both theorists define poetry and set it superior to nature itself, and defend poetry nature. Both theorists define poetry and set it superior to nature itself, and defend poetry against its objectors.
against its objectors.
But although Sidney and Shelley seem to agree on most topics, they differ on a fundamental But although Sidney and Shelley seem to agree on most topics, they differ on a fundamental basis:
basis: Sidney Sidney believes believes that that poetry poetry teachesteaches ““doctrines [that exists] in some legislativelydoctrines [that exists] in some legislatively competent authority itself
competent authority itself ””1919, but Shelley on the other hand states that poetry itself can be a, but Shelley on the other hand states that poetry itself can be a source of motives for good actions:
source of motives for good actions:
[P]oetry (
[P]oetry (…) awakens and enlarges the mind itself by rendering the receptable of a thousand…) awakens and enlarges the mind itself by rendering the receptable of a thousand unapprehended combinations of thought. (
unapprehended combinations of thought. (…)…) The great instrument of moral good is theThe great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry administers to the effect by acting upon
imagination; and poetry administers to the effect by acting upon the cause.the cause.2020
In this essay I have provided historical context and pointed out Sidney
In this essay I have provided historical context and pointed out Sidney ’’s main arguments ins main arguments in An Apology for Poetry
An Apology for Poetry, and how he argues against Plato, and how he argues against Plato’’s criticism against poetry. Further on,s criticism against poetry. Further on, I have given examples from the source text, explained and tied them together, before I have given examples from the source text, explained and tied them together, before comparing Sidney
comparing Sidney’’ss Apology Apology to Percy Bysshe Shelleyto Percy Bysshe Shelley’’ss A Defence of Poetry A Defence of Poetry..
18 18
Percy Bysshe Shelley,
Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Defence of Poetry A Defence of Poetry inin The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism , Norton 2001: 717, Norton 2001: 717 19
19
William K. Winsatt Jr. &
William K. Winsatt Jr. & Cleanth, BrooksCleanth, Brooks , Literary Criticism , Literary Criticism – – A Short StoryA Short Story, Routledge 1970: 422, Routledge 1970: 422 20
20
Percy Bysshe Shelley,
Litterature
Litterature
Leitch, Vincent B.,Leitch, Vincent B., The Norton Antology of Theory and CriticismThe Norton Antology of Theory and Criticism, Norton 2001, Norton 2001 Shelley, Percy Bysshe,
Shelley, Percy Bysshe, A Defence of Poetry A Defence of Poetry Sidney, Sir Phillip,
Sidney, Sir Phillip, An Apology for Po An Apology for Poetryetry Winsatt, William K. Jr. & Brooks, Cleanth,
Winsatt, William K. Jr. & Brooks, Cleanth, Literary CriticismLiterary Criticism
