34 pages • 1 hour read
Philip SidneyThe Defence of Poesy
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1595A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Literary Genre and the Nature of This Work
Sir Philip Sidney centers a good deal of his argument around literary genres and their respective purposes. An aspect of this discussion is to define and analyze the genres of philosophy, history, and poetry. In so doing, he denigrates the exact generic traits that he uses in this very work.
Toward a definition of poetry, Sidney says: “Poesy therefore is an art of imitation [...] that is to say, a representing, counterfeiting, or figuring forth [...] with this end, to teach and delight” (25). He adds later, in his first “Examination” section, that poetry is also the genre most suited to “moving” the audience to virtuous action.
The author takes a less generous view of the other genres, philosophy and history. Although the avowed purpose of philosophy is also to teach virtue, it does this through “definitions, divisions, and distinctions” (29), the “plain setting down” (30) of lessons without stirring narratives to bring them to life. History, on the other hand, seeks to teach virtue with stories. However, its “greatest authorities are built upon the notable foundation of hearsay” (30). The historian, according to Sidney, is “better acquainted with a thousand years ago than with the present age” (30). The failings of philosophy and history—and their failure to combine the three pillars of teaching, delighting, and moving—make them inherently inferior to poetry.
It is surprising that amidst this lofty praise of poetry and stern criticism of other genres, this work contains all the characteristics of philosophy and history, but not of poetry. Despite speaking disparagingly of the divisions and definitions of philosophy, Sidney employs the same approach to his analysis of poetry; one section of his work is even titled “Divisions.” Similarly, although he criticizes historians for their preoccupation with the past and their necessary reliance on hearsay, Sidney makes extensive use of historical examples to illustrate his points in defense of poetry.
Although this is a work in praise of poetry and one that is critical of other literary genres, The Defence of Poesy is not itself poetry. Now recognized as a foundational work in the genre of literary theory, Sidney employs a framework of oratory, incorporating elements of philosophy and history, to support his argument. The author does not attempt to deny his use of tropes from the very genres that he denigrates, but rather betrays a playful self-consciousness. For example, following an extended list of historical examples in illustration of a point, Sidney excuses himself: “But I list not to defend poesy with the help of his underling historiography” (61)—despite repeatedly turning to history throughout the text. This consciousness of genre and use of any generic traits but those of poetry can cause some confusion. In this state, it is helpful to remember that this is a work of literary theory, intended for an audience of humanists who are perhaps skeptical of poetry. For all that Sidney praises the superiority of poetry, that genre is not in fact well-suited to the needs of this argument.
Humanism and Its Values
Humanism, an intellectual movement based on the study of ancient literature, rose to prominence in Sir Philip Sidney’s time. Although the movement would not have its name for a few centuries, Sidney and similar contemporary thinkers are still considered humanists. That Sidney was a humanist writing for an intended audience of humanists is proven by the fact that much of his writing is almost indecipherable to a reader with no classical education. Along with his frequent use of Greek and Latin quotations, the author’s deep concern for virtue reflects the humanist influence on this work.
Besides the many overt classical references, Sidney’s humanist ethos appears at the text’s structural level. The treatise is written in the style of a rhetorical exercise; these were exercises written in the style of ancient Greek and Latin oratory, following a structure and employing argumentative styles that had been standardized in antiquity. The inclusion of sections entitled “Exordium,”“Narration,” and “Peroration,” for example, indicates clearly that this is a work in the style of classical oratory. Rhetorical exercises in this style were a staple of humanist education, and this format aligns Sidney with his humanist audience.
Besides evoking humanist education through his structure, Sidney also allows humanist values to pervade his argument. Although the author does not analyze the concept of virtue in depth, the idea of it lurks behind most of the arguments in this text. An indication of the importance of this quality comes in the opening words, when Sidney mentions his friend “the right virtuous Edward Wotton” (17). This title reflects the humanist trend of referring to worthy people as prudentissimus (“most virtuous”), and it immediately aligns Sidney with humanist thought.
For Renaissance humanists, the idea of “virtue” encompassed many positive traits, such as goodness, faith, leadership, and courage. The primacy of virtue originated in classical thought, such as the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and was still of central importance in Sidney’s time. Thus, the author can state, with no need for elaboration, that “the ending end of all earthly learning is virtuous action.” (29). Just as Sidney’s argument and structure show a preference for his humanist audience, so too do his assumptions about values and the goal of education.
The History of Literary Criticism
Sidney’s The Defence of Poesy is rightly considered a seminal work of literary theory, and one of the first such works in modernity. Although this treatise has certainly exercised a massive influence over this genre for centuries, it was not created in a vacuum. Sidney alludes throughout the essay to the theories of ancient thinkers and to the critical works of his own contemporaries.
One of the original works of literary theory was Aristotle’s Poetics, a philosophical text that categorized and formalized ancient Greek and Roman poetry. Its influence persisted well into the Renaissance, and Sidney draws extensively from Aristotle’s analysis. Sidney cites Aristotle and borrows from other revered ancient thinkers in one of this work’s pivotal passages, the “Proposition.” Sidney writes: “Poesy therefore is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in the word mimēsis [...] to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture—with this end, to teach and delight” (25). The term mimēsis, which Aristotle first applied to poetry, reflects the representational nature of the genre. Sidney elaborates on this concept, terming poetry a “speaking picture.” This is a reference to the Greek biographer Plutarch, who calls poetry “painting with words” in his Moralia and On the Glory of Athens. Finally, Sidney borrows from the Roman author Horace’s Art of Poetry to determine that poetry’s purpose is “to teach and delight.” Sidney’s definition of poetry is not at all innovative, therefore, but is entirely indebted to ancient literary theory.
Sidney’s influences are not limited to ancient thinkers. It appears that one of the motivating factors behind the creation of this treatise was Stephen Gosson’s essay The Schoole of Abuse, a work that is highly critical of English theater, and that was dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney. Gosson is never mentioned by name, but his arguments against drama inspire the third section of Sidney’s “Refutation,” which deals with the bad moral influence of poetry. Sidney’s own analysis of English drama in the “Digression” could also be seen as an answer to Gosson, in which he concedes certain failings in contemporary English poetry.
Sidney also situates himself within the contemporary intellectual context by referencing the Italian humanist J.C. Scaliger, who wrote the work Seven Books on Poetics. He generally aligns himself with Scaliger’s poetic theory, saying, for example: “[I] believe, with Scaliger, that no philosopher’s precepts can sooner make you an honest man than the reading of Vergil” (74). He gently disagrees with the Italian, too, when he asserts: “One may be a poet without versing, and a versifier without poetry. But yet, presuppose it were inseparable (as indeed it seemeth Scaliger judgeth), truly it were an inseparable commendation” (50). Sidney is therefore bringing his own stamp to the contemporary trends in literary criticism.
An understanding of the state of literary criticism in Sidney’s time, which combined revered ancient theories with an emergence of newer critiques, gives context to many of the author’s choices in his argument. Although The Defence of Poesy itself sparked a movement in literary criticism, Sidney drew upon a rich history in this field and was careful to situate himself clearly within it.
