Defending Poetry Theme Analysis

When Philip Sidney’s “An Apology for Poetry” was published in 1595, it bore two titles: “The Defence of Poesie” and “An Apologie for Poetrie.” These titles alert readers to the fact that “An Apology for Poetry” is in fact a written oration with the explicit goal of defending poetry against the critiques of Elizabethan intellectuals. Upon close inspection, it is clear that “An Apology for Poetry” has all seven parts of a classical courtroom speech. Throughout, Sidney attacks critics of poetry for being uncharitable readers, or confusing low-quality modern verse for true poetry. But the most substantive rebuttal comes in the second half of the defense, where Sidney refutes four traditional critiques made of poetry. “An Apology for Poetry,” like the speech of a lawyer in court, seeks to persuade its readers and thereby win a case: here, to exonerate poetry from certain accusations made against it, as well as to restore poetry to its proper standing in the world of arts and letters.

Although written to be read, not spoken, Sidney’s “An Apology for Poetry” follows the classical seven-part form of a courtroom speech. It has an exordium or introduction (a “hook”), proposition (definition of poetry), division (taxonomy of poetry), examination (in-depth account of each kind), refutation (against four charges), peroration (flashy conclusion), and digression (on modern English poetry). The very structure of the work is meant to be persuasive: “An Apology for Poetry” seeks to change the reader’s mind. Furthermore, the forensic speech was a commonplace of Renaissance humanist education, and thus reflects Sidney’s social standing, as well as the class of his readership. This book was intended for the highly educated, and emerges from the culture of the court. “An Apology for Poetry” opens with an anecdote about learning horsemanship—the quintessential activity of the aristocrat—in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor. The instructor taught not only the art of riding, but also “sought to enrich our minds with the contemplation” of the activity. The riding instructor is a figure for Sidney himself, who will not teach the reader to write poetry, but to appreciate its place in the broader scheme of the arts.

If the implied defendant (accused) of “An Apology for Poetry” is poetry itself, and the implied jury is the reader, then the implied plaintiffs (accuser) are Sidney’s fellow Elizabethan intellectuals, who through malice or misunderstanding do not accord poetry the respect it deserves. At the very opening of the essay, Sidney calls those who “professing learning, inveigh against poetry” ungrateful, since they insult “the first light-giver to ignorance, and first nurse, whose milk by little and little enabled them to feed afterwards of tougher knowledge.” In other words, their humanist educations probably consisted largely of reading and analyzing poetry. Later on, Sidney refers to “poet-haters” who simply attack poetry for the sake of getting attention. The arguments of this group are not made in good faith, and so cannot be taken seriously. They also fall apart under logical scrutiny; poet-haters object above all to the form of poetry, but Sidney argues that, “being in itself sweet and orderly, and being best for memory,” verse is “the only handle of knowledge” and as such is unimpeachable. The virtues of poetry are so clear and self-evident, Sidney suggests, he must only summarize them in order to win.

In the refutation section, Sidney neutralizes the four main criticisms that have been made of poetry in some form or another since antiquity. The first criticism is that poetry is a waste of time. This is an instance, Sidney suggests, of begging the question, for if one accepts Sidney’s argument that poetry “teacheth and moveth to virtue” one must necessarily admit that poetry is not a waste of time. Second, critics claim, poetry “is the mother of lies.” In response, Sidney claims that “of all writers under the sun, the poet is the least liar.” This is because the poet does not claim to describe reality, as an astronomer might, but rather invents his or her own realities, and so cannot lie about them. The poet “nothing affirthmeth, and therefore never lieth.” The poet therefore does not tell the reader anything true, but also cannot lie. Third, poetry is “the nurse of abuse” and incites the reader to feelings of lust and sinfulness. Sidney grants that poetry can promote questionable values—but “shall the abuse of a thing make the right use odious?” If someone commits a crime with a sword, one would not blame the sword, but the person who used it. In fact, by arguing for the power of poetry to affect people’s values, critics “prove the commendation” that poetry, used correctly, can promote good values. For every example of poetry making people lazy or unwarlike, Sidney offers instances in which poetry has made people more active and manly, such as Alexander the Great’s love of Homer. The fourth and final criticism Sidney rebuts is the fact that Plato banished poetry from his ideal city in the Republic. Sidney describes Plato as the most “poetical” of philosophers, and argues that, like some poets, he has been misunderstood. For Plato meant not to ban poetry altogether, but rather “those wrong opinions of the Deity.” Plato “banish[ed] the abuse, not the thing”, and thereby gave “due honor to it.” Readers should therefore think of Plato not as the poet’s “adversary,” but as his “patron.”

In “An Apology for Poetry,” Sidney makes several ingenious arguments to defend poetry against the criticisms commonly leveled against it. The essence of Sidney’s defense is that poetry, like anything else, can be abused by unskillful or immoral poets, but that the misuse of poetry should be considered the exception and not the rule. If one considers poetry in good faith—and does not simply criticize to get attention, like some of the poet-haters—one sees that the major critiques of poetry are actually commendations, since they rest upon the premise that poetry is a powerful communicator of useful and moving fictions.