Previous
Summary
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in An Apology for Poetry, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Poetry vs. History and Philosophy
Poetry, Creation, and Imagination
Defending Poetry
Poetry in the Vernacular
Summary
Analysis
Sidney tells the reader that he and Edward Wotton once studied horseback riding with Giovanni Pietro Pugliano at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor. Pugliano did not simply teach them about the art of riding horses (how to do it) but invited them to reflect on the activity in a philosophical manner (why one should do it).
Sidney begins his Apology with an anecdote that acts as the exordium, or introduction, to his essay, which is modeled on a classical oration. The anecdote establishes Sidney’s status as an aristocratic gentleman, since horseback riding was a symbol of status. Pugliano’s philosophical approach to teaching riding—dwelling not so much on how as on why one should do it mirrors Sidney’s own approach in the Apology: it will not be a guide to writing poetry, but a philosophical essay about the value of poetry.
Themes
Pugliano argued that soldiers are the most noble of noblemen, and that “no earthly thing bred such wonder to a prince” as skill on horseback. He also praised the nobility of the horse, and spoke so persuasively that Sidney admits that if he was not a “logician,” he might have wished that he could have been a horse. Sidney concludes from this that “self love is better than any gilding.”
Pugliano relates the activity of horseback riding to the aristocratic ideals it embodies. His humorous aside about wanting to be a horse indicates that Sidney does not take Pugliano in total seriousness, and that Sidney understands the slightly ridiculous nature of praising horses and horseback riding. He attributes Pugliano’s high-flying rhetoric with self-love: because Pugliano is proud of himself, he must also be proud of what he teaches.
Themes
Sidney turns to poetry as another example of this phenomenon: how “strong examples and weak arguments” can nonetheless be convincing. He says that he has “slipped into the title of the poet” and so has been provoked to defend his “unelected vocation” because poetry has fallen from its privileged position among the arts to be the “laughing-stock of children.” He jokes that there is danger of “civil war among the Muses.”
Sidney claims that his praise of poetry will be a “weak argument” either as part of a rhetorical strategy to capture the goodwill of the reader (formally called a captatio benevolentiae) or because he is being slightly ironic. In either case, he claims that, like a good aristocrat, he writes his defense only because his own honor is at stake.
Themes
Sidney argues that the critics of poetry are ungrateful. In most cultures, poetry is the means by which the young are educated, the “first nurse” who introduces children to learning.
In the Renaissance, elite education involved the memorization of many poems and the composition of verse in several languages. Sidney probably also has nursery rhymes in mind.
Themes
Get the entire An Apology for Poetry LitChart as a printable PDF.
The earliest Greek writers (Musaeus, Homer, and Hesiod) were poets, and helped to “draw with their charming sweetness the wild untamed wits to an admiration of knowledge.” Archaic poets, like Livius and Ennius in the Latin tradition, inspired people to become more civilized. The same could be said of Dante, Boccace (Boccaccio), and Petrarch, in Italian, and Gower and Chaucer in English, who “encouraged and delighted” later poets “to beautify our mother tongue.”
Poetry has priority not only in the education of children, but also in literary and intellectual history more broadly. Indeed, poetry does not only introduce individuals to learning, but can be seen to be the be the first form of literature and instruction for Western culture on the whole.
Themes
In the ancient world, Sidney explains, there was no real distinction between poetry and the other arts: poetry was the language of all learning. The earliest Greek scientists, like Thales, Empedocles, and Parmenides, “sang their philosophy in verses.” The same could be said for moral philosophy (Pythagoras, Phocylides), the art of war (Tyrtaeus), and politics (Solon). Even Plato, who was famous for his critiques of poetry, wrote in a poetic manner: his dialogues are fictions, complete “poetical describing” of circumstance and named symbols (Gyges’s ring, for example). The great historians, such as Herodotus, “either stole or usurped” from poetry their description of human emotions, the details of historical events that they never could have seen themselves, and the orations they never could have heard.
The distinct separation of literature from philosophy and history and science is a modern phenomenon. The Ancients—who, to a Renaissance reader, had great wisdom and authority—did not distinguish between imaginative literature and other kinds of writing. Sidney suggests that the best classical authors, regardless of topic, used poetic techniques in their writing.
Themes
These great writers would never have become popular, Sidney suggests, if they hadn’t written poetically. As is clear across world cultures (Sidney cites Turkey, Ireland, and Wales), poets are widely respected by the people, however uneducated the general populace may be. Even where there have been attempts to eradicate learning, such as in the conquests of Wales, poetry survives.
Sidney himself had traveled across Europe and may speak from personal experience. It is remarkable that an aristocrat, who benefited from an elite education, brings forward mass popularity as evidence for the virtues of poetry.
Themes
Because most of the examples considered thus far have been Greek and Roman, Sidney now considers what names these ancient cultures gave “this now scorned skill.” At Rome, a poet was referred to by the Latin noun vates, which means a seer or prophet. Sidney takes this as evidence of a great respect for the activity of the poet. He mentions the various cultural practices that linked poetry and prophecy, such as the sortes Virgilianae, whereby one turned to a random line in Virgil and read it as a kind of prophetic statement about one’s life, such as the ancient English king Albinus did. Sidney notes, too, that the English word charm derives from the Latin word carmen, which means “poem” or “song,” and that the prophecies of the oracle at Delphi and the Sibyl were delivered in verse.
Sidney, like other Renaissance authors, puts a great value on etymology: the words the ancients contain some kernel of truth about what they name. Indeed, this information seems to us to have little logical force in Sidney’s argument. Yet he incorporates it as a given without offering justification, since its value to a Renaissance reader would be self-evident. It is interesting to note that, although the Roman Sibyl and the Oracle at Delphi were roles always occupied by women, Sidney presents the poet throughout the Apology as male. The Apology is not explicitly misogynistic and does not preclude the possibility of a female poet, and indeed there were female poets in the Renaissance. But Sidney does seem to have a male poet in mind.
Themes
It wasn’t just the Romans who thought of the poet as prophet, Sidney claims. For the prophet David wrote the Psalms—“a divine poem,” Sidney writes—in verse. Sidney notes that not only the form but also the style of the Psalms is poetic, with its metaphors and similes. Although Sidney says that he runs the risk of “profan[ing]” the Psalms by referring to them with the modern word poetry, he suggests that the comparison points to the fact that, if the name be “rightly applied,” it’s clear that poetry “deserveth not to be scourged out of the church of God.”
Sidney is a Christian writing to a Christian audience, so it makes his argument more effective to show that the classical pagan ideas about poetry were shared by religious writers. Also, because one of the major early modern critiques of poetry was that it corrupts the morals of its audience (as Sidney addresses later on in the “refutation”), it is important for Sidney to link poetry with religious virtue.
Themes
Turning to the Greeks, Sidney notes that in Greek a poet is called poietes, which literally means “maker.” (The English word derives from the Greek.) Sidney feels that this is a very good name, because, while all other arts have to do with “the works of nature”—that is, what has been made by God—the poet alone, “disdaining to be tied by any subjection,” uses his “invention” to create a new nature, better than the one in which we live. He is not subject to nature, but rather “goeth hand in hand” with nature, free to invent fictional characters and events. The poet creates a perfect, “golden” world.
Again, we see Sidney’s faith in etymology. Here, translating the Greek word poietes literally allows Sidney to make a connection to the Judeo-Christian God, who was also a poietes when He made the universe. Sidney’s poet is not a traditionally pious person, however: he “disdain[s]” to be “tied” to nature as it currently exists, and instead uses his own powers of “invention” to make a nature that replaces the one God created. Sidney makes the extremely bold claim that the poet “goeth hand in hand” with nature as an equal—and so that the poet in a way rivals God on earth. This is a kind of Renaissance egoism notably shared by the Italian humanist Pico Della Mirandola in his famous Oration on the Dignity of Man, in which he claims that humans are the best of God’s creation because they most resemble God in their ability to participate in everything in nature. Finally, Sidney echoes ancient creation myths (notably in Hesiod and Ovid) as well as the Christian story of the Fall, when referring to a “golden” age. The poet restores greatness that has been lost through human sinfulness. Later on, Sidney will say that poets teach virtue in such a way as to make humans beings as good as they can possibly be in their “clay lodgings.”
Themes
The poet also creates perfect people with perfect virtue, creating a paradigmatic lover as Theagenes (in Heliodorus’s ancient novel), an exemplary friend in Pylades (in Euripides’s Orestes), an extraordinary hero in Orlando (in Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso), a perfect prince in Cyrus (in Xenophon’s Anabasis), and a most generally excellent man in Aeneas (in Virgil’s Aeneid).
The poet does not simply resemble God in making a second and more perfect nature. The poet is most like God in being able to make perfect people— according to traditional Christian theology, humankind is the highest and most perfect of God’s creatures, because humans (who can think and create) resemble God more than any other animals.
Themes
The virtue of every “artificer,” Sidney writes, consists not in the actual creation of a work of art, but in the “idea, or fore-conceit of the work.” This means that the genius of the poet resides in coming up with the idea of the perfect Cyrus or Aeneas. It is in this capacity of imagination that the poet most resembles God, “the heavenly Maker of that maker,” whose elevation of humankind is nowhere more visible than in humankind’s ability to perfect God’s nature through poetry.
Sidney isolates the work of the poet not in the writing of verse, but in the imagination. Sidney abstracts the act of poetry from writing and instead puts it in the realm of the mind. Since this activity does not occur in language, and is not bound by any material limitations, it is therefore even more divine. In choosing God’s creation as the model for the poet’s creative activity, Sidney implicitly genders this activity as male, as the creation of forms of “ideas” rather than the matter, which, in the Aristotelian models of reproduction current in the Renaissance, was gendered female.
Themes
But in order to make the truth of the matter more “palpable,” Sidney now will depart from etymology and go for a precise description of poetry.
Here Sidney moves into the second formal section of a classical oration, called the Proposition, in which a definition is proposed.
Themes
Sidney’s definition is simple: poetry is “an art of imitation,” or, as Aristotle called it, mimesis. This is a representation or “counterfeiting” of reality. Sidney uses the metaphor of a “speaking picture,” the end of which is “to teach and delight.”
Sidney’s definition is uncontroversial, since it would have been familiar to many of his readers. Yet the emphasis on realism seems slightly out of keeping with the earlier insistence that the act of the poet is essentially creative, rather than bound by nature as it currently exists.
Themes
Sidney subdivides the definition he has just offered, claiming that there are three major categories of poetry. The central kind, “CHIEF, both in antiquity and excellency,” is poetry that imitates “the inconceivable excellencies of God.” Namely, David’s poetry in the Psalms, Solomon’s in the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs, Moses and Deborah and Job, and so on. Although they were not Christians, pagan poets like Orpheus and Amphion (both mythical) and Homer did the same.
Here, Sidney moves into the next section of the classical oration, the Division, in which he complicates his definition of poetry. Once again he lumps classical pagan poetry in with Judeo-Christian scripture. He is careful to make clear that the oldest form of poetry is religious and therefore cannot be criticized. Note that Sidney bases these distinctions on the content or theme of the poetry in question, rather than the structural form.
Themes
The second kind of poetry is philosophical. This includes poetry about moral philosophy, such as the work of Tyrtaeus, Phocylides, and Cato, or about natural philosophy, such as Lucretius’s On the Nature of Things, or Virgil’s Georgics. This can also be about astronomy, as in Manilius and Pontanus, or about history, as in Lucan. Those who don’t enjoy these poets, Sidney writes, can only blame themselves for not savoring “the sweet food of sweetly uttered knowledge.” This poetry is in some way limited by its subject.
Although philosophical poetry may now seem unusual, classical authors did indeed write philosophical treatises in poetic verse. One of the goals of doing so was to make difficult ideas more palatable, as Lucretius famously states in On the Nature of Things when he compares his verses to honey that coats difficult ideas about Epicurean philosophy. Sidney probably alludes to this metaphor when he speaks of “sweetly uttered knowledge.” No matter how sweet this poetry may be, it is still essentially bounded by nature; philosophical poetry attempts to communicate the truth of things as they actually are.
Themes
The third and final category of poetry does not have any such limitation. This is the poetry written by “right poets.” If philosophical poets are like painters who paint the people in front of them, “right poets” are like painters who use their imagination to paint in colors “fittest for the eye to see.” Hence a good painter does not paint the Roman heroine Lucretia, whom the painter never saw, but rather uses Lucretia as the “outward beauty” of the virtue she represents. These “right poets,” like the best painters, create in order to “teach and delight.” They are not limited by what is or has been in the world, as the historian or philosopher might be, but rather enter into “divine consideration of what may be, and should be.” These “right poets” deserve the title of vates, and teach their readers to be virtuous.
Sidney once again uses the metaphor of the painting as a figure for “right” poetry. Instead of simply giving a picture of reality, a good painter adds something distinct, painting in a style that is particularly attractive for the reader. Sidney also suggests that good painting is not so much the depiction of reality—realism—as a vehicle for communicating ideas through allegories.
Themes
Sidney notes further subdivisions of poetry, naming heroic, lyric, tragic, comic, satirical, iambic, elegiac, and pastoral poetry. Although these differ in form and content, most are written in verse. But Sidney makes the important point that verse is merely one way in which poetry can appear, and is not the “cause” of poetry. Indeed, some of the best poets never wrote in verse, such as Xenophon in his descriptions of Cyrus, or Heliodorus in his narration of the love of Theagenes and Chariclea. Poetrs generally do write in verse, however, because they do not write in a “table-talk fashion” and want to exercise care in writing “according to the dignity of the subject.”
Whereas Sidney made the three broad categories above (religious, philosophical, and “right” poetry) based largely on the themes of this poetry, here he addresses smaller categories based on content (heroic poetry, satire, comedy) as well as form (elegiac, iambic, tragic). Although Sidney does not make it explicitly clear, “right” poetry could appear in any of these categories, because true poetry is not “cause[d]” by verse or any other formal property.
Themes
Now that he has specified the kind of poet and poetry he is interested in surveying, Sidney enters into an examination of the activity of the poet in order to secure “a more favourable sentence.”
With his terms defined, and categories drawn, Sidney enters into the next part of the classical oration, called the Examination, in which he investigates the poet and poetry in greater detail.
Themes
The final end of learning, Sidney states, is to make imperfect humans—trapped in “their clay lodgings,” or bodies—as good as possible. Some have thought that this tendency toward virtue could best be cultivated through astronomy and natural philosophy, others through music and mathematics, but all of these revealed themselves to be imperfect, since study of these subjects does not compel one to be virtuous. They are mere “serving sciences”—means to the end of some kind of immediate knowledge that only indirectly relates to the ultimate end of “the mistress knowledge,” the Greek sophia, which Sidney suggests is ultimately self-knowledge. Hence the saddle-maker makes a saddle in order to facilitate horsemanship; the horseman seeks to ride well in order to participate in some ideal of “soldiery,” and so on. The arts that do the most to serve some ultimate, rather than proximate, end deserve to be considered “princes over all the rest.” Sidney feels that poetry is such an art.
Unlike our modern conception of poetry as belonging to the realm of literature, Sidney thinks of poetry as a branch of learning, that, like any other science, attempts to make human beings better. The arts are means to some end, and Sidney argues that the better the end—that is, the closer that end is to divine wisdom—the better the art. Astronomy, for example, has the relatively limited end of knowing the positions of the stars and thereby improving navigation, agriculture, etc. Astronomy, and related branches of learning like mathematics, have nothing to do with improving the person who studies them. But poetry has the end of teaching virtue, the best possible end. Therefore, according to Sidney’s logic, it is the best of the arts.
Themes
Among the primary challengers for the title of prince of the arts is moral philosophy. Sidney imagines moral philosophers confronting him “with a sullen gravity,” speaking to him “sophistically against subtlety” and in general full of moral paradoxes. Sidney describes how philosophers try to use logic to come up with a way of teaching virtue, and try to master the passions “by showing the generalities that contain it, and the specialities [sic] that are derived from it.”
Sidney uses poetic language to caricature moral philosophers as over-serious and hypocritical in the way they speak “sophistically” against the use of subtle, or sophistic, language. Although they take themselves very seriously, Sidney believes that their logical approach to virtue—which involves making scholastic distinctions about virtue in the abstract—is unhelpful for teaching actual people.
Themes
The historian, on the other hand, “laden with old mouse-eaten records,” is similarly bound by the discourse of history. He knows more about the past than the present. He claims to know more about virtue than the philosopher because, while the philosopher teaches “by certain abstract considerations,” the historian teaches “active” virtue as embodied in historical events such as the battles of Marathon, Pharsalia, Poitiers, and Agincourt. According to this schematization, Sidney explains, the philosopher gives the “precept” and the historian gives the example.
Again, Sidney uses his skills as a creative writer to give a negative caricature of the historian, whose “mouse-eaten” records are of interest only to other historians and are of little help in the teaching of virtue. Although each is an imperfect teacher of virtue independently, together they make a good team: the historian complements the philosopher in that history provides a wealth of concrete examples with which to illustrate the abstract ideas of philosophy.
Themes
But it is poetry, Sidney claims, that deserves to be considered the most elevated of the arts. Sidney compares the poet with the historian and the philosopher—he ignores the lawyer who, though concerned with peoples’ manners, is not interested in improving people—and observes that neither philosophy nor history can teach virtue on its own. One gives the moral principle, the other the historical example, but one or the other can not teach virtue independently. The moral principle is too abstract, the historical example not abstract enough.
Again, the historian and the philosopher are imperfect teachers, and lack the autonomy enjoyed by the poet. Each is trapped by the nature of the discourse in which he or she writes.
Themes
The poet, however, can give both abstract principles and compelling moral examples. In fact, the poet can give “a perfect picture” of what the philosopher says should be done. The poet makes an image out of what to the philosopher was merely “wordish description,” which would otherwise “lie dark before the imaginative and judging power.” The “speaking picture of poesy” thus illuminates abstract truths using these compelling examples. Examples from literature, such as Anchises speaking about patriotism as Troy falls, teach readers much more about virtue than the philosopher’s description of it. Sidney lists other examples, and notes how in common language the names of characters or mythical figures have become synonymous with certain emotions or types of people (i.e., Oedipus is synonymous with remorse, Medea with bittersweet revenge).
Unlike the historian or the philosopher, the poet can teach virtue independently. Sidney again invokes the metaphor of the speaking picture by claiming that the poet, instead of having to search through history for an example that may not exist, can come up with a “perfect picture” of a philosophical ideal. Sidney also associates poetry with the bright light of enlightenment, since poetry can illuminate what may otherwise “lie dark” to the mind of a reader. Once again, Sidney conveys interest in etymologies, and the origins of common phrases. The use of literary character names as synonyms for common character traits is evidence, for Sidney, of the effectiveness and memorability of these poetic creations.
Themes
Sidney concludes that the “feigned image” of poetry does more to teach readers about virtue than the “regular instruction” of philosophy. He cites the most famous example of moral teaching in Western culture, Christ’s preaching in the Gospels, and notes that, while Christ could have advocated the general importance of charity and goodness, he instead spoke in concrete, “instructing” parables. The philosopher may teach but does so “obscurely,” for those who already know enough to understand him or her. The poet, on the other hand, is “the right popular philosopher,” teaching virtue in a way that everyone can understand.
Once again, Sidney makes an argument of association: poetry must teach virtue if Christ, the greatest of all moral teachers, used it in his preaching. Sidney here alludes to Christ’s parables of the Sower, the Reaper, the Two Roads, and others immortalized in the Gospels. Christ could have spoken like a philosopher, speaking in abstract terms, but instead, like a poet, he chose to embody his principles of virtue in compelling miniature narratives, stories that could be remembered and discussed by all.
Themes
But what of history, which should have a monopoly on compelling examples? Here Sidney once again draws on Aristotle, who wrote in the Poetics that poetry is more philosophical and, in Sidney’s translation, “ingenious” than history because it deals with the universal (katholou) rather than the particular (kathekaston). Of course, it is good to record what actually happened. But poetry isn’t limited by that: the poet can write about what should have happened: of a great hero, such as Cyrus, not as he was, but as he should have been. The “feigned” Cyrus or Aeneas is “more doctrinable” than the true Cyrus or Aeneas, more capable of instructing readers about virtue because he is more clearly an embodiment thereof. Sidney gives other examples before concluding that the historian is limited by “his bare WAS,” whereas the poet can create an example to suit precisely what he or she is trying to communicate.
Sidney continues to consider arguments that claim history or philosophy to be a better teacher of virtue than poetry, and hence prince of the arts. Here he addresses history’s rich store of examples. Although history does indeed deal in the concrete, it can never embody the universal, or ideal, in the concrete, because such people or things have never actually existed. A perfect king, for example, simply cannot exist in created nature—humans are imperfect. Hence, the historian cannot offer a perfect example for instruction. But the poet can come up with a morally perfect example that is more “doctrinable,” or didactic, exactly because it is “feigned,” or fictionalized to suit the occasion. Like the painter Sidney mentions above, the historian can only write about what is in front of him or her, a “bare” picture of what was, while the poet can present something much more vivid.
Themes
Sidney takes pains to emphasize that a “feigned” example—although technically not historically true, or historical at all—is as useful for teaching as a real example. He cites examples from Herodotus, Livy, and Xenophon, all of whom tell fictional stories about noblemen trying to deceive kings, and getting punished for it in the end. These stories will surely be as compelling as factual narratives to one who is considering how to deceive in a similar way, Sidney reasons.
This passage foreshadows an argument Sidney will make more explicitly in the Refutation section of the text. Sidney is careful to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with poetry because it is fictional, or “feigned.” Even great ancient historians invented stories, or at least embellished them with fictional details, but that doesn’t make them any less useful for teaching virtue. Indeed, Sidney’s argument thus far suggests that it would make them more useful.
Themes
The poet, then, is indeed prince of the arts, because he can come up with compelling examples about any subject under the sun. Unlike history, which is “captive to the truth of a foolish world,” poetry can present perfect examples in the most compelling and instructive way, eliminating moral ambiguities and contradictions, of which Sidney cites several examples. Indeed, it is possible that, as Caesar said of Sulla, history could do more harm than good to one trying to learn virtue.
Sidney concludes that, not only is poetry worthy of our respect as a potential teaching tool, but it is the best of the teaching tools. He may verge on hyperbole when he refers to history as prisoner of “the truth of a foolish world,” but in drawing such clear distinctions between disciplines that obviously have a lot in common, Sidney he exemplifies the cut-and-dried moral clarity he praises in poetry. At the very least, Sidney cleverly inverts arguments made against poetry—namely, that it is fictional, and is therefore inferior, and that it corrupts morals, and is therefore harmful. These are precisely the faults that Sidney finds with history: it is truthful and therefore limited, and it could corrupt morals because plenty of historical figures did bad things.
Themes
Continuing the metaphor of competition among the arts for the title of prince, Sidney concludes the comparison with history and philosophy by remarking that the poet triumphs by “setting forward” examples and “moving to well-doing” through the compelling way in which he or she does so. Not even the greatest lover of philosophy would say that the philosopher moves a listener or reader more effectively than the poet, and moving is the most important part of teaching. Indeed, it is both its cause and effect, for in order to be taught, one must have a desire to be taught, and good teaching moves one to do what is taught.
Sidney here continues to invert criticisms of poetry, turning them into arguments for its power. As will be stated later in the Refutation, the affective part of poetry—its ability to affect the emotions of its audience—is at the center of traditional criticisms of poetry, notably Plato’s. But Sidney claims that it is precisely that ability to move, to affect us in a way that isn’t rational, that makes poetry an effective tool for teaching. Sidney subtly but importantly reformulates teaching as something that is not simply about the mind and reason, but rather operates on an affective foundation of desire: we must want to learn, and then want to apply what we learn. Being moved to do what is right is substantially different from knowing what is right. Sidney claims that poetry is able to tap into the affective system that underlies moral behavior.
Themes
Sidney again cites Aristotle, who said that the goal of teaching is not knowledge (gnosis) but action (praxis). The philosopher may show someone the way, and describe the end one strives to reach, but in his or her complex analysis may divert one from the path of virtue. Philosophers think that, once one has mastered the passions enough to concentrate and understand what they teach, “the inward light of each mind” will light the way to virtue. But Sidney claims that actually being moved to act virtuously is another problem altogether, and requires more than just understanding abstract philosophical ideas.
Sidney bolsters his argument by invoking the hallowed name of Aristotle, this time invoking not his poetic theory, but his ethics. Philosophy has a tendency to believe that thinking and understanding is enough to lead to virtuous behavior. But this not only fails to acknowledge the affective basis of moral action discussed above, but also runs the risk of overestimating the “inward light” of the reader, who may not have the training or intelligence to understand the difficult and abstract arguments made by philosophy. The imagery of light recalls Sidney’s earlier claim that the “speaking picture” of poetry can illuminate the obscure philosophy that may otherwise “lie dark before the imaginative and judging power” of the reader.
Themes
If philosophy gives one a clear sense of the complexity of an issue, poetry entices one to learn it by giving a “sweet prospect into the way.” It is as if, at the beginning of a journey through a vineyard, the poet gives the reader a cluster of grapes, a taste of the reward at the end. Just as adults teach children to take medicine by hiding it in something sweet, so does poetry hide virtue in the appealing stories of heroes like Hercules, Achilles, Cyrus, and Aeneas. If the morals of these tales were told directly to the listener—as philosophy does—they would be rejected. Even things which are inherently repulsive, like suffering or monsters, give readers some kind of pleasure when they read them in a story, as Aristotle noticed. Therefore, poetry is a kind of “medicine of cherries,” giving pleasure while also delivering the medicine of virtue.
Sidney provides a metaphor for the teaching activity of the poet through the journey through a vineyard. This metaphor implies that the path to virtue takes time, and that pleasure must be provided in order to motivate one to undertake the journey. Sidney draws upon the language of sweetness used earlier (i.e. when he describes philosophical poetry as “sweetly uttered knowledge”) to figure the poet as one who gives one a foretaste of the benefits of virtue through the pleasurable stories of virtuous characters and actions.
Themes
Sidney illustrates this with two examples, starting with Menenius Agrippa, a Roman politician who reconciled the people of Rome with the Roman senate by telling a moral allegory about mutiny, in which he compared the state to a body that conspires against its stomach, and ends up starving itself. This story led to the reconciliation of the problem, having “such effect in the people as I never read that only words brought forth.” The second example is of Nathan, a prophet from the Hebrew Bible, whom God sent to bring David, the Psalmist, back to the faith after having abandoned religion. Nathan told David an allegory about a man whose lamb was stolen from him, of which Sidney says that “the application [was] most true, but the discourse itself feigned.” This caused David to reflect on his actions and return to religion.
To show the power of poetry to teach virtue, Sidney cites a classical Roman example and an Old Testament religious example, drawing upon the two most authoritative sources available to him as a Renaissance author. In the first example, Menenius uses a poetic metaphor to communicate the danger of mutiny to a crowd of Romans; just as Christ’s parables were able to reach a broader audience than mere abstract ideas, Menenius is able to make a relatively sophisticated argument to a crowd of average people using a metaphor. Poetry, this example shows, can teach virtue in the public sphere. The second example, Nathan’s appeal to David, shows that poetry can teach in the entirely different context of private religious matters. In the case of both Menenius and Nathan, the metaphors in question are “feigned”—neither were making arguments about facts. Instead, they came up with evocative metaphors to inspire reflection in their audience, so that their listeners came to a virtuous conclusion independently.
Themes
From these stories, Sidney says, it’s clear that the poet can “draw the mind” more effectively than the other arts. If the arts and the learning they yield are meant to improve readers in some way, then poetry must be the best of the arts and the poet the best of the artists: “in the most excellent work is the most excellent workman.”
Again, Sidney emphasizes that poetry “draws” the minds of its audience through something other than argumentation. Poetry is able to move them, through imagery, to act virtuously, in ways that philosophy and history cannot. Since it teaches virtue most effectively, it must be the best of the arts.
Themes
Sidney now turns from the “works” of poetry—what it can do—to the “parts” of poetry, or its various different kinds. Even if readers find poetry on the whole to be virtuous, Sidney wants to be sure that all of its component parts are examined so as to find anything objectionable. Sidney acknowledges that some kinds of poetry are mixtures of genres (e.g., tragicomic) or of forms (e.g., Boethius’s mixture of poetry and prose), and will not be able to address them all, but if the component genres are found to be good, these mixtures must be good, too.
Now that Sidney has made his broad claims, and established why poetry in general is a good teacher of virtue, he will go through different kinds of poetry in detail, in order to convince the audience even more thoroughly of the virtues of this art. Because Sidney believes that poetry is something that takes place in the poet’s mind, and that real poetry is the “idea” or “fore-conceit,” the particular form in which a poet chooses to write is incidental and should not affect one’s overall opinion of poetry.
Themes
Sidney goes through a number of minor genres of poetry that are “misliked” by critics. The first is the pastoral, which some find trivial or petty, but which can actually communicate profound lessons in what seem to be simple fables. The second is the “lamenting elegiac,” which expresses woe or critiques the human tendency to strong feeling. The third is the “bitter, but wholesome iambic,” which openly decries moral corruption. The third is satire, which mocks folly in all sorts of people, including the reader.
In the mode of a defense attorney, Sidney notes the subgenres of poetry that have been singled out by critics, and shows that if one simply thinks about what these forms of poetry aim to do, the criticism of each is baseless.
Themes
Moving to major genres, Sidney argues that people criticize comedy because bad actors and directors have “made [it] odious.” But Sidney says in response to critics that comedy reflects life as it actually is, and people as they actually are, and—just as in geometry we must see the curved as well as the straight lines, and in mathematics we must count the odd as well as the even numbers—so we must examine the “filthiness” of life as a “foil” for virtue. By seeing imperfect characters on stage, we learn to identify them in life. We don’t learn to behave badly by watching such characters, but rather learn to identify our own faults, which might otherwise remain invisible to us.
Sidney once again employs his now familiar tactic of distinguishing between poetry as it is practiced in Elizabethan England and the ideal form of poetry he has described in the Apology. In another familiar argumentative move, Sidney shows that what critics perceive to be the problematic aspects of comedy—namely, its presentation of morally questionable characters—is what makes it a useful teaching tool. It is important to note that, although Sidney argues for poetry as an abstract process that occurs within the poet’s mind, almost all of his arguments for the value of poetry hinge on its effects in practice. The poet creates a second nature that in some ways is more perfect, or morally clear, than God’s nature—but that only matters insofar as it leads people to behave more virtuously.
Themes
In a similar way, tragedy, through evoking “admiration and commiseration” with its suffering characters, teaches us about the uncertainty in life. It scares the powerful, warning kings about the dangers of tyranny, and is therefore clearly a useful genre.
Both comedy and tragedy are valuable because they stir their audience to reflection. Just as comedy should make one more attentive to one’s own moral flaws, so does tragedy render one more conscious of the historical contingencies that govern one’s life. Sidney’s comments on drama here may take a subtle shot at the morality of poetry’s critics: if one understands drama, Sidney argues, one learns from it. In his view, detractors of poetry clearly don’t understand drama, so they haven’t learned from it, and therefore have perhaps not realized their own moral faults.
Themes
Next Sidney turns to lyric poetry, which praises virtue, offers moral precepts, and is often used to praise God. Sidney states that he is frequently moved by lyric, even in the rustic forms he might hear in rural England. He believes that it can give courage, citing the poetry he heard in Hungary, and the historical example of the Lacedaemonians (Spartans) who sang lyrics about valor at home as well as on the battlefield. Pindar, the great Greek lyric poet, may sometimes praise seemingly small athletic victories, but that can be blamed on a broader Greek tendency to put too high a value on athletic competition, rather than on poetry itself.
Sidney’s collection of lyric poetry, the sonnet cycle Astrophel and Stella, is his most widely-read work after the Apology. Therefore, his comments on lyric must have a special resonance for Sidney’s own poetry. This section also reflects Sidney’s own travels through Europe. It is interesting to note that he lumps his own experience in with classical examples: Sidney uses all the evidence at his disposal to make his arguments.
Themes
The final genre Sidney addresses is heroic verse, whose very name should “daunt all backbiters.” How could anyone criticize poetry that tells of Achilles, Cyrus, and Aeneas, among other great heroes? This kind of poetry teaches the highest and best kind of virtue, and is therefore the best kind of poetry, since it makes the reader most eager to be virtuous. It also gives one the best examples to imitate in life, such as Aeneas, who gives a good model for all aspects of behavior.
Once again, Sidney claims that the value of poetry is self-evident. It is impossible to criticize poetry that gives us such unquestionably perfect examples of virtue as ancient heroes.
Themes
Sidney concludes this tour of the poetic genres, which has shown all of them to be good in some way, by comparing the “poet-whippers” to “some good women” who always feel ill, but don’t know why exactly: these critics don’t like poetry in general, but, if they like virtue, they must like what poetry does to its readers.
Since all the poetic forms that Sidney has considered have proven to be self-evidently valuable for teaching virtue, Sidney concludes this section by claiming that critics of poetry complain for no reason. In a slightly misogynistic metaphor, he compares critics of poetry to women who complain of being ill for no identifiable reason. “Poet-whippers”— a name that suggests Sidney does not respect the critics of poetry—are stuck in a contradiction if they simultaneously praise virtue and criticize poetry, because poetry and virtue are closely linked.
Themes
Sidney summarizes his arguments thus far: poetry is the oldest form of human learning, found in every culture and given much respect by the Greeks and the Romans. The poet does not “learn a conceit out a matter,” the way a philosopher does, but “maketh matter for a conceit,” creating a concrete thing in which to express an idea. Furthermore, poetry cannot be evil because it teaches goodness. In this way, the philosopher is a better teacher than the historian, who can never speak of moral absolutes, and surpasses the philosopher in his ability to move his audience. Even the Bible uses poetry in the Psalms, and Christ himself employed parables, which are fictional narratives of a kind.
Before moving into the next section of the classical oration, Sidney briefly refreshes the reader’s memory with a summary of the arguments that he has employed so far to prove the excellence of poetry. All of these arguments revolve around poetry’s effectiveness for teaching virtue, rather than any intrinsic quality of poetry itself.
Themes
Sidney now turns to refuting critiques made of poetry. He begins with the superficial ones. First of all, Sidney notes that “poet-haters” (he uses the Greek term misomousaioi) like to criticize poetry because it gets them attention. Critics of this kind don’t deserve a substantial response, just ridicule. Some writers, like Erasmus in the Praise of Folly, make absurd claims to attract the reader’s attention to an important or non-intuitive argument. But generally critics of poetry are merely fools.
Following the structure of the classical oration, Sidney now moves into the Refutation, where instead of arguing a positive case for the value of poetry, he will refute criticisms made against it. Sidney begins by trying to discredit the critics of poetry by once again giving them a ridiculous name that makes them seem foreign and perhaps old-fashioned.
Themes
What many of the poet-haters object to is verse. Sidney has already explained that verse is not an essential quality of poetry. But even if verse was an essential part of poetry, to speak carefully and beautifully must be a good thing. What is more, verse is very useful for memory, which is an important part of learning. Indeed, all of the other arts use verse as a tool for memorization. If verse is the best tool for memory, “the only handle of knowledge,” a reasonable person can’t object to it.
In fitting with their generally superficial approach to poetry, poet-haters object to the (ab)use of verse. But, as Sidney has described in detail, the essence of poetry is something that precedes the actual act of writing and takes place in the poet’s imagination. Yet even verse can be defended, since it is a useful tool for memory. This recalls arguments Sidney made earlier for the ingratitude of the critics of poetry, who themselves would have been educated with the help of verse.
Themes
Now Sidney moves on to address four more substantial critiques of poetry, critiques that cannot be so easily dismissed. The first is that poetry is a waste of time. Sidney objects that this critique “begs the question”: it relies on the principle which is under discussion, namely the value of poetry. If one believes that poetry moves to virtue and is therefore a good thing, then it cannot be a waste of time.
So far, Sidney’s strategy has been to show that criticism of poetry is inconsistent, because it ignores the links between poetry and virtue. Sidney’s argument here is a perfect example of this rhetorical strategy in miniature: claiming that poetry is a waste of time is a bad argument because it presupposes something about the quality of poetry that Sidney has shown to be self-evidently untrue.
Themes
The second major criticism, deriving ultimately from Plato’s critique of poetry in the Republic, is that poetry is the “mother of lies,” and the poet is a great liar. Sidney responds by claiming that the poet is actually the “least liar” of all writers, since it is in fact impossible for a poet to lie. An astronomer or geometer or physician—natural scientists talking about the real world—inevitably get things wrong. But the poet does not claim to talk about reality, so he or she cannot, by definition, lie: “he nothing affirmeth, and therefore never lieth.”
As Sidney hinted before, the poet “feigns” but he does not lie. Here, Sidney makes an important distinction between fiction—an invented reality—and dishonesty. In order for something to be a lie, it must make a claim about the state of the world as it actually is. Natural scientists make claims about the state of the world, and therefore run the risk of being dishonest, or just plain wrong. But the poet is not bound by the world as it actually is and does not (usually) claim to represent it accurately. Therefore, no matter how fantastic the contents of a poem, a poet cannot be a liar.
Themes
Poetry may contain things that are not true, but these are not lies; they are fictions, and whoever doesn’t understand this is being willfully perverse. Whoever thinks that Aesop records true histories should be “chronicled among the beasts he writeth of.” For even a child seeing a play understands that the setting is not real. The narration of a poem or a play is not meant to reflect reality as it really was, but rather “an imaginative ground-plot of a profitable invention.” Even when a poet uses names that belonged to real people, it is not to make claims about those actual people but rather to signal that the character in question is like those people (for instance, a king, if he is called Cyrus).
Sidney appeals to common sense to distinguish poetry from lying. Children are a figure for common sense, since their thinking has not been perverted by ulterior motives or the sophistic subtleties of philosophy. Not even a child would say that a playwright claims to show a real place in a play: it is always only a setting, a “ground-plot” on which the poet of the imagination may work. Any resemblance to reality is to provide a kind of short-hand for the audience, rather than to make claims about how a certain person actually was.
Themes
The third major criticism is that poetry corrupts the morals of its audience, inciting lust. Sidney grants that much poetry has to do with love and lust. However, this is not the fault of poetry itself, but rather of the people who write it, and one should not blame poetry for the way certain authors have abused it. Indeed, the power of its “sweet charming force” is actually proof of its power to move its readers—the same power that can move to virtue.
Sidney here combines two familiar rhetorical moves. First, he claims that if some poetry does corrupt its audience, it is the fault of unskilled modern poets. Second, he claims that that arguments for the corrupting influence of poetry should actually be understood as arguments for the affective power of poetry, which can be wielded for good or for ill. Sidney shows that what appears like a critique is actually an indirect praise of poetry.
Themes
Medicine can be similarly abused, as can the law, and religious texts, without discrediting those branches of knowledge. If someone uses a sword to kill another person, one does not blame the sword, but the person who used it. Similarly, in claiming that poetry corrupts the sexual morality of its audience, critics are actually endorsing poetry’s power, which in the right hands promotes virtue.
To illustrate his claim that the corrupting influence is not poetry itself, but the authors who abuse it, Sidney compares poetry to medicine, law, and theology, each of which are recognized to be good but are very commonly abused by malicious or ignorant practitioners. Poetry, like medicine and the other arts, is a tool that should not be blamed for the faults of its practitioners. The comparison of poetry with a sword infuses Sidney’s rhetoric with a military air, subtly linking poetry with “manly” and aristocratic activities like warfare and dueling.
Themes
In the same vein, critics say that poetry saps the courage and warlike spirit of a nation, and that the general moral state of England was better before poetry was popular. Sidney rejects the idea that there was ever a time when poetry was not popular in England, and cites several examples of poetry being used to promote courage and military spirit. Sidney cites the example of Alexander the Great, who rejected the teaching of Aristotle in favor of the poetry of Homer. Sidney cites a similar example from Roman history, of the Roman general Fulvius’s love for the archaic Latin poet Ennius.
Sidney draws upon historical examples to show that poetry was loved by plenty of notable heroes. Like the comparison of poetry to a sword above, Sidney links poetry with masculine courage on the battlefield.
Themes
The fourth and final criticism that Sidney rebuts is the claim that poetry must be bad because Plato banished it from his ideal city in the Republic. Sidney claims that Plato was in fact the most poetic of the philosophers. He suggests that one of the reasons Plato might have turned against poetry was that philosophers, after having learned much from poetry, tried to discredit it to establish their own dominance.
Here Sidney addresses the well-spring of poetry hatred in the Western tradition. It is striking that Sidney waits till the end of his refutation to refute Plato’s treatment of poetry in the Republic, which some readers might have expected to come at the very beginning due to its fame and influence. Sidney claims that Plato and his fellow philosophers are not unimpeachable authorities, but themselves were governed by competition and anxiety just like any modern might be. In a clever argument—similar to one Nietzsche would employ three centuries later in his discussion of Plato’s moral theory—Sidney suggests that Plato’s critique of poetry is an anxious theory designed to suppress poetry.
Themes
Philosophers grew to hate poets because philosophy could not please so well as poetry, and could not capture the affection of the people in the same way, and were even expelled from some communities. It is said that the lyric poets Simonides and Pindar had a positive effect on the tyrant Hiero the First, and helped turn him into a just king, while Plato was made into a slave. Indeed, he invites readers to examine Plato’s ideal city: women were shared among men, in what seems to the modern reader like an immoral social practice.
Just as contemporary moral philosophers may feel themselves in competition with poetry, ancient philosophers were conscious of the fact that poetry was more popular than philosophy, and for good reason. Sidney’s example of the civilizing influence of Simonides and Pindar on Hiero shows that the idea that philosophers are morally superior to poets wasn’t necessarily shared by the ancient Greeks. Indeed, if one considers the moral character of Plato’s Republic, one sees that it would not meet the moral standards that critics of poetry are so anxious to uphold. Sidney suggests that Plato’s ideal Republic isn’t actually a moral place, so Plato’s critique of poetry should not be taken seriously.
Themes
Plato doesn’t object to the sexual immortality of poetry, which is what bothers Sidney’s contemporaries, but rather to poetry’s promotion of seemingly heretical ideas about the gods. But these only reflected commonly held beliefs in Greece, and had nothing to do with poetry itself. Therefore, Plato meant to banish poets only because they very effectively promoted ideas that he didn’t like, which means that he actually believed in the power of poetry and thus indirectly praised it when banning poets from his republic.
Sidney has claimed at several points that contemporary critics of poetry confuse poorly written modern verse for poetry itself. Here he claims that Plato did something similar when he banned the poets from his city: he confused the contemporary culture that poets were representing with poetry itself. Sidney repeats the move he made earlier, claiming that Plato’s condemnation of poetry is therefore an indirect endorsement of its power.
Themes
Sidney invites his readers to consider that, alongside the criticisms that people have made of poetry, many famous people have also praised it. Aristotle would not have written his Poetics if he thought poetry shouldn’t be written, Sidney reasons. Sidney concludes that we should “plant more laurels” to crown poets with, instead of tolerating the “ill-favoured breath” that some critics want to blow upon the “clear springs of poesy.”
Sidney closes the main body of the Apology with a Peroration, or conclusion. He makes the obvious but compelling point that such great classical authorities like Aristotle would not have wasted their breath on poetry if it did not have some value.
Themes
Sidney decides that, since he has gone on so long, he should consider why there is so little good poetry in England, a country in which the other arts flourish. For many other countries have strong traditions of poetry, like Scotland and France and Italy, and there used to be plenty of good poetry in England, even in times of war. The consequence of this vacuum is that there is a proliferation of bad poetry, giving poetry a bad name. Indeed, most of Sidney’s contemporaries don’t deserve the title of poet, and he claims that he never sought it.
Continuing to follow the classical structure that he has very carefully observed so far, Sidney enters into a Digression on the state of poetry in England, particularly in the vernacular. Although he has made hints throughout the Apology that he does not approve of modern English poets, here he addresses the subject directly. Sidney is clear that, unlike the striving and (he implies) less gentlemanly writers, he himself writes only as an avocation, rather than professionally. Indeed, in fitting with his aristocratic sense of self, none of Sidney’s texts were printed and sold in his lifetime.
Themes
For poets cannot simply claim the title of poets without the proper skill. A famous old proverb says that poets must be born poets, but Sidney says that even talented young minds must be educated in order to become good poets. The chief instruments of this education are “imitation” of classical authors and “exercise” through practicing different kinds of writing. If students do these activities properly, they will eventually learn to create their own original poetry inspired or influenced by classical authors but not in slavish imitation of them.
Sidney acknowledges the role of talent and genius in the writing of poetry, but also endorses humanist theories of education in which imitation of the classics forms an essential component of learning how to write. Imitation must not be an end in and of itself, however, otherwise students will never write good poetry.
Themes
Sidney then offers some comments on famous English poets. He praises Chaucer, who “in that misty time could see so clearly.” He praises the Earl of Surrey, and makes an indirect praise of Spenser by naming his “Shepherds’ Kalendar.” But in general what Sidney offers are criticisms: modern poets try to sound old, and write inelegant verse.
Sidney praises Chaucer, arguably the most famous early English poet, for his clarity of vision. This indicates once again the inherently visual nature of poetry, hearkening back to the metaphor of poetry as a “speaking picture.” Sidney also makes clear that, despite his constant praise for ancient poetry, modern poets must not try to sound like ancient poets; they must write in a way appropriate to the modern era.
Themes
Dramatists do not observe the classical unities of space and time, and so present ridiculous plots that take place over many months or years and in different countries, which does not seem at all realistic. Furthermore, dramatists stick too closely to historical details, forgetting that a playwright must adapt history to suit the plot and substance of a tragedy. He suggests that they learn from classical tragedy how to make use of the messenger speech to report action that cannot be represented on stage. Finally, modern playwrights too often tell a story from the beginning, when instead they should start at the place best suited for narration.
Despite his criticism of apishly imitating classical authors, Sidney’s main critique of modern dramatists is that they do not abide closely enough by the unities of time and space described in Aristotle’s Poetics. He argues, too, that modern dramatists do not write realistically enough: the long timespans and big geographical ranges of modern plays are not plausible. Yet this emphasis on realism is slightly unexpected because throughout the Apology, Sidney has emphasized the poet’s ability to transcend nature and its limitations.
Themes
In addition to these “gross absurdities,” by which modern authors fail to meet the standards established by classical literature, they mix genres, and abuse them. They mix kings with clowns, creating “mongrel tragicomedy.” Furthermore, they think that comedies must always be funny and provoke laughter. But Sidney points out that laughter is only one kind of delight that comedy provokes, which comes from “disproportion” to the normal human experience and to nature (i.e., deformed creatures and monsters). Sidney advises that comedy shouldn’t just be about matters that provoke laughter, but should also provide the kind of “delightful teaching” that is the end of true poetry. Audiences should not be invited to laugh at things that actually should deserve condemnation, like sins, or pity, like an old beggar. Instead, laughter should be reserved for delightful things, like a ridiculously pedantic schoolmaster. Sidney praises George Buchanan for having matched tone with content in his tragedies.
Sidney believes that modern English authors also do not understand that the rules of genre must be observed. Again, despite his insistence on the autonomy and creativity of the poet, Sidney has a strangely strict notion of what is and is not permissible in imaginative literature. Yet his critiques make sense when one remembers that Sidney’s praise of poetry is ultimately grounded in its ability to teach virtue. Comedy must be written in order to teach virtue most effectively, so as to educate the audience to feel the appropriate emotional responses to what it sees.
Themes
Sidney then apologies for spending so much time on drama, but says that he does so because there is relatively little poetry of other kinds in England, except lyric. Modern lyric, too, is poorly written, as modern lyric poets are generally too cold. They need to portray the passions with more energia, a Greek term that means “vigor.”
Just because Sidney believes that poetry should teach virtue and morality does not mean that he is a prude, as his critique of the lyric poetry’s coldness shows. Sidney’s appeal to ancient poetry as a source of energy or vigor is typical of a Renaissance humanist, who would see classical literature as a source for inspiration.
Themes
Beyond the poor application of particular genres, modern English writers generally confuse fancy-sounding language for eloquence. The problem occurs not just in poetry, but also in the learned discourses of scholars, who “cast sugar and spice upon very dish that is served at the table,” instead of tastefully seasoning their language with fewer classical references and big words. Classical authors might have expressed themselves effectively, but when modern writers imitate them too closely, or cite them too often, it falls flat. Writers also come across as ridiculous or sophistical when they try to use very elaborate comparisons, or similitudes. Classical authors actually used such devices very rarely, and Sidney approves of the less fancy speech of “small-learned courtiers” because it sounds more natural, which is the goal of art.
Just as he has argued that criticisms of poetry are superficial, and ignore the true nature of poetry, Sidney now claims that modern poets, as well as writers of other kinds, have too superficial a relationship to language. They think that fancy language makes for good poetry or prose, when in reality good writing cannot simply be produced by loading prose with classical allusions and big words. Sidney draws upon the metaphors of food and taste that he used above when describing the “sweetness” of poetry when he describes false eloquence as “sugar and spice.” Additionally, he alludes to the commonplace that “art conceals art” when he praises the simpler language of the less-educated courtier.
Themes
After apologizing for straying from poetry to oratory, Sidney considers the fitness of modern languages, and particularly English, for writing poetry. Sometimes people criticize English for having less grammar than Latin, but Sidney sees this as an advantage, because people do not have to study so much to learn how to express themselves effectively in their mother tongue. English is also capable of achieving both “sweetness” and “majesty” in its meter, unlike Italian, Dutch, or French, and also has more possibilities for rhyme than other modern languages.
Sidney’s discussion of oration alongside poetry reminds the reader that Sidney himself is both a poet and an orator, and that the Apology is an oratorical praise of poetry that, like all good writing (according to its own arguments) employs plenty of poetic metaphors and images to make its case. Sidney also writes the Apology and his other poetry in English, thereby endorsing the argument he makes here for the virtues of the English language. Sidney’s argument for the superiority of English is simultaneously evidence of his broad reading in many languages and the international transmission of literature in the early modern era, as well as evidence of an emerging sense of nationalism at the time.
Themes
Sidney reiterates that poetry has a bad reputation in England because of the bad verse written by “poet-apes,” and not because of any intrinsic fault of poetry itself. He invites his readers to respect poets and poetry as teachers of virtue. Sidney warns his readership that poets are also capable of immortalizing people in their verse, so the names of people who respect poetry will “flourish in the printers’ shops” and shall “dwell upon superlatives” forever. The critics of poetry, on the other hand, will never succeed in their romantic endeavors because they will get poets to write them sonnets to help woo their beloveds, and will not be remembered after their death for want of a compelling and memorable epitaph.
In this second and final peroration, Sidney gives a distilled version of the argument he has been making throughout the apology: do not confuse bad poetry with poetry itself. Instead of ending here, however, he finishes with a humorous threat. Alluding to the commonplace that poetry has the power of making the poet and his or her subject immortal (famously stated in Horace’s Odes, a text frequently cited in the Renaissance), Sidney reminds the reader that a poet must choose to immortalize him or her. Despite the diverse logical claims he makes in the Apology, Sidney concludes with an appeal to the reader’s emotions—seeking to move the reader, just as a poet should.
Themes
