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.
Section 3Chapter Summaries & Analyses
“Refutation” Summary: “Accusations 1 & 2”
In the “Refutation” section, Sidney anticipates what criticisms could be made against poetry, “which may be worthy either of yielding or answering” (49). Addressing critics as a whole, Sidney insults their pedantry and suggests that their criticisms show a lack of wisdom. The author also takes some time to defend rhyming verse (which is sometimes denigrated as a low art) by arguing that the flow of this poetry makes it easier to memorize and therefore to learn from.
Having addressed these general topics, Sidney introduces the four main accusations against poetry: that it’s a waste of time; that it’s the “mother of lies” (51); that it’s a bad moral influence; and that it’s banished from Plato’s Republic. Sidney deals quickly with the first accusation, arguing in sum that, although there are admittedly better pursuits than poetry, it does not follow “that good is not good, because better is better” (52).
The author now turns to the second accusation, that poets are liars. This criticism is based on the principle that fiction is the same as a lie. Sidney argues that the difference between lies and fiction is that fiction never claims to be the truth: “For, as I take it, to lie is to affirm that to be true which is false” (52). By contrast, many of Sidney’s contemporaries in the scientific community (such as doctors and astronomers) presented conjecture as fact.
“Refutation” Summary: “Accusations 3 & 4”
Sidney now addresses the third supposed criticism of poetry, that its subject matter can have a bad influence on the audience. Sidney places the blame for this on bad poets rather than poetry as a whole: the problem is not “that poetry abuseth man’s wit, but that man’s wit abuseth poetry” (54). Against the further criticism that poetry inspires slothfulness rather than action, Sidney argues that poetry in fact has the opposite effect. He points to examples of great military and political leaders of antiquity who admired poetry and benefited from its lessons.
The final accusation against poetry is that it’s not included in Plato’s ideal government in his much-admired Republic. Sidney points out that Plato is not himself a great moral authority since several of his works contain themes that Sidney considers shocking. He further shows that Plato, in fact, denigrates the abuse of poetry, and not poetry itself: “St. Paul himself [...] setteth a watchword [warning] upon philosophy—indeed upon the abuse. So doth Plato upon the abuse, not upon poetry” (59). The author concludes that poetry has always coexisted with philosophy as a moral authority. Sidney ends the “Refutation” with a brief summary of the above arguments.
“Digression” Summary: “English Poetry”
To conclude this treatise, Sidney turns his attention to England and identifies the nation’s failings in the genre of poetry. He reiterates the great value of poetry and celebrates England’s previous achievements in genre, but he laments the prevalence of bad poetry in his day. He makes the point that “[a] poet no industry can make, if his own genius be not carried into it” (63); that is, good poets are born and not made.
Sidney identifies seven particular areas in which English poetry fails: poetry itself; drama; unity of place; unity of time; decorum; laughter (versus delight); and love poetry. For the first area of poetry itself, Sidney complains that much English poetry is a confusion of words that loses all meaning. In the second area of drama, the author argues that contemporary tragedy and comedy (which at that time were written in verse) are “observing rules neither of honest civility nor skilful poetry” (65). The third and fourth criticisms, unity of place and time, expand upon Sidney’s disappointment with English drama. The author laments contemporary theater’s penchant for spanning diverse locations and vast amounts of time, in violation of the standards set out in ancient drama.
For the fifth criticism, violation of decorum, Sidney explains that this means mixing the stock themes of tragedy and comedy in theater. The result of this mixture is that “we have nothing but scurrility, unworthy of any chaste ears, or some extreme show of doltishness” (67), but no worthwhile poetic outcome. Turning to comedy, Sidney criticizes English poets for confusing laughter with delight: “[T]hey stir laughter in sinful things, which are rather execrable than ridiculous, or in miserable which are rather to be pitied than scorned” (69). Finally, focusing his scorn on love poetry, Sidney laments the cold and unromantic nature of this genre in contemporary England.
“Digression” Summary: “Diction and Peroration”
The second part of Sidney’s criticism of English poetry centers on word choice, or what the author calls “diction.” He criticizes writers’ habit of imitating the works of ancient writers, particularly orators, and falling into an overwrought and unnatural style. As Sidney explains, such an author, “using art to show art, and not to hide art [...] flieth from nature, and indeed abuseth art” (72).
Continuing the discussion of diction, Sidney points out that the English language is particularly well-suited to poetry since it is easy to master and combines the influences of other languages. With regards to meter and rhyme, too, Sidney tells us that English ought to be the ideal language for poetry since it has more freedom with rhythm and rhyming schemes than other modern languages.
Sidney concludes his treatise with a brief “Peroration,” or conclusion. Summarizing the central arguments and themes of this work, the author adopts a humorous tone, ending with the following scathing wish for critics of poetry: “[T]hat while you live, you live in love, and never get favour for lacking skill of a sonnet; and, when you die, your memory die from the earth for want of an epitaph” (75).
Section 3 Analysis
Continuing with the structure of a traditional oratorical exercise, Sidney moves from his praise of poetry to a more targeted “Refutation” against apparent criticisms of the genre. This section best reflects the freedom granted by Sidney’s oratorical style to make his own argument appear the strongest.
Sidney lists four arguments against poetry: that it is a waste of time, the “mother of lies,” a bad moral influence, and dismissed by Plato. The author certainly had reason to address these arguments in particular; the third accusation, for example, was a central point in Stephen Gosson’s anti-theater essay The Schoole of Abuse. However, it is important to remember that Sidney had the ultimate choice in deciding which arguments to refute, and particularly how to frame them. Describing the fourth argument, he says that “[critics] cry out with open mouth as if they had overshot Robin Hood, that Plato banished [poets] out of his commonwealth” (52). This presentation of the opposing argument, conjuring a mental image of unreasonable and overly-emotional protests, reminds the reader that Sidney has complete control over the representation of this argument.
This control appears again in the presentation of arguments imputed to the opposing side. Addressing the fourth accusation in greater detail, Sidney writes: “First, truly, a man might maliciously object that Plato, being a philosopher, was a natural enemy of poets” (58). In contrast with the unreasonable, “malicious” arguments of the opposing side, Sidney presents his stance as fair-minded and reasonable, saying: “But I honour philosophical instructions, and bless the wits which bred them: so as they be not abused, which is likewise stretched to poetry” (59). This control over the argument reminds the reader that this is a rhetorical exercise, and hence that the author has carefully selected every topic and every word to suit the needs of his thesis.
Despite the vehemence of his arguments against critics of poetry, Sidney uses the “Digression” to explain his own critique of English poetry. Here, he expands upon his suggestion that, although poetry as a genre is fundamentally good, bad poets can create bad poetry: “[B]ase men with servile wits undertake [writing poetry], who think it enough if they can be rewarded of the printer” (62). Throughout the “Digression,” Sidney abuses the state of contemporary poetry—especially theater, which was then written in verse—while always stressing value of the genre as a whole. In this respect, Sidney is very much aligned with the humanist thinkers who are his intended audience. The author expresses a conservative attitude toward the art of poetry, praising practices that were standard in antiquity (such as unity of time and place in plays), and bemoaning practices that were emerging in Renaissance England (such as writing a variety of locations and a considerable expanse of time into plays).
At this point, the reader has been primed for Sidney’s conservative literary theory, given his abundant citation of ancient sources and his choice to employ a classical rhetorical structure for this treatise. It is critical to note, however, the strong limitations of Sidney’s argument: poetry is good, but only insofar as it is exemplified in classical texts. Bad poetry exists and can be identified by its deviation from the classical ideal.
Although the “Peroration,” or conclusion, is much simpler than the “Exordium” (with its extended anecdote about horsemanship), there are thematic and tonal links between the two that create a unified framework for the thesis. Most notably, Sidney returns to the sardonic language that marked the introduction. As he did in the opening paragraphs, Sidney uses exaggerated self-deprecation to engage the reader, saying: “I conjure you all that have had the evil luck to read this ink-wasting toy of mine [...] no more to scorn the sacred mysteries of poesy” (74). The author continues this humorous cynicism in his concluding sentence, cursing critics of poetry to unrequited love (since they cannot write love poetry) and obscurity in death (since they cannot write an epitaph). These comedic moments offset the seriousness of the work as a whole and could perhaps assuage the emotions of some of Sidney’s reading audience. Combining this tonal choice with a summary of the arguments of the essay and revisiting the classical themes and references that have been so central to the work, Sidney’s “Peroration” offers a fitting and succinct summary of the treatise as a whole.
