Miller1

Michael Miller

Dr. Jeffrey W. Timmons

ENG400 - 29120

March 22, 2016

Sidney: Defender of Poesy

Sir Philip Sidney was a staunch advocate for the poetic form, not only as a literary genre

strong enough to stand firm against a long-standing tradition of philosophical criticism, but as a

genre that exceeds what other genres, such as history and philosophy, are able to accomplish.

As a true Renaissance Man, Sidney draws from his extensive reading of history, literature,

philosophy, and poetry to fight against the three historical objections to poetry that started

with Plato: that there are more meaningful endeavors with which to fill ones time, that poetry

is the mother of lies, and that poetry turns mankind towards sinful actions and lust for the

passion presented in poetry (271).

In his rebuttal to the first claim, Sidney makes the argument that poetry alone both

teacheth and moveth to virtue, and that, in fact, there can be no greater purpose for writing

(271). Here, poetry exceeds philosophy in its ability to not merely teach morality, but to compel

its readers to moral action through inspirational verse. Sidney also explicitly argues against the

usefulness of the historian as a writer who offers no moral compass by simply stating facts,

implying that poetry has a far greater reach and purpose. He also traces the word poet back

to its Latin roots, revealing that the ancients, so revered by the modern critical elite, viewed

poets as prophets and even provides a Biblical example of King Davids divine authorship of
 Miller2

the book of Psalms, arguing that if poetry is good enough to be included in the Bible, it

automatically deserves a place in the library of the learned.

Moving to the second historical argument against poetry, that it is the mother of lies,

Sidney simply states that poetry never pretended to present absolute truth and therefore

cannot be judged for its efforts to exceed nature: Now, for the poet, he nothing affirms, and

therefore never lieth (271). Sidney goes on to list other fields such as medicine, astronomy,

and history that all seek to assert some sort of truth and thus often deal in lies based on

incorrect information, but the poet does not tell you what is or is not, but what should or

should not be (271). Again, Sidney highlights the weakness of history, which only deals with

particulars, against the universal reach of poetry which deals in generalities, and proves that

poetry is the greater literary form.

Sidney quickly dismisses the third argument, that poetry infects us with many pestilent

desires, by suggesting that there is only bad interpretation, not bad poetry (271). Poetry, like

any tool or weapon, can be used to serve moral or evil purposes, but it relies on the person

holding the tool and not the builder of the tool. He goes on to state that philosophy, the genre

historically associated with providing moral guidance, is the progeny of poetry and that Plato

was perhaps the most poetical, or imaginative, of the philosophers. Sidney clarifies that Plato

only sought to banish theologically incorrect poetry against the Roman gods of the time which,

as Sidney states, has been set right by Christianity (275).

In conclusion, Sidney presents several solid, though somewhat stretched, rebuttals to

the historical argument against poetry made chiefly by philosophers. His best argument lies in
 Miller3

his criticism of the other literary genres and their inability to advance a more universal,

objective, and motivating moral imperative than what he shows poetry to achieve.
 Miller4

Works Cited

Sidney, Sir Philip. The Defense of Poesy. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and

Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2010. Print.