Sydney’s Argument on the Virtues of Poetry

 In “An Apology for Poetry,” Sir Philip Sidney sets out to restore poetry to its rightful place among the arts. Poetry has gotten a bad name in Elizabethan England, disrespected by many of Sidney’s contemporaries. But, Sidney contends, that critics of poetry do not understand what poetry really is: they have been misled by modern poetry, which is frequently bad. If one understands the true nature of poetry, one will see, as Sidney shows in his essay, that poetry is in fact the “monarch” of the arts. Sidney does so by articulating a theory of poetry, largely drawn from classical sources, as a tool for teaching virtue and the poet as a semi-divine figure capable of imagining a more perfect version of nature. He not only brings examples from classical Greek and Roman scholars but also puts his own logic in proving poetry as better teaching and learning medium than both history and philosophy, and finally refutes allegations against poetry.

Sidney begins his defense of poetry by noting that poetry was the first of the arts, coming before philosophy and history. Indeed, many of the famous classical philosophers and historians wrote in poetry, and even those who wrote in prose, like Plato and Herodotus, wrote poetically—that is, they used poetic style to come up with philosophical allegories, in the case of Plato, or to supply vivid historical details, in the case of Herodotus. Indeed, without borrowing from poetry, historians and philosophers would never have become popular, Sidney claims. One can get some indication of the respect in which poets were held in the ancient world by examining the names they were given in Latin and Greek, vates, and poietes. Vates means “seer” or “prophet,” and in the classical world, poetry was considered to convey important knowledge about the future. Poietes means maker, and this title reflects the fact that poets, like God, create new and more perfect realities using their imaginations.

Sidney then specifies that the kind of poetry he is interested in is not religious or philosophical, but rather that which is written by “right poets.” This ideal form of poetry is not limited in its subject matter by what exists in nature, but instead creates perfect examples of virtue that, while maybe not real, is well-suited to teaching readers about what it means to be good. Poetry is a more effective teacher of virtue than history or philosophy because, instead of being limited to the realm of abstract ideas, like philosophy, or to the realm of what has actually happened, like history, poetry can present perfect examples of virtue in a way best suited to instruct its readers. The poet can embody the philosopher’s “wordish descriptions” of virtue in compelling characters or stories, which are more pleasurable to read and easier to understand and remember, like Aesop’s Fables. The poet should therefore be considered the “right popular philosopher,” since, with perfect and pleasurable examples of virtue, like Aeneas from Virgil’s Aeneid, poetry can “move” readers to act virtuously. Reading poetry about virtue, Sidney writes, is like taking a “medicine of cherries.”

Following the classical structure from this examination to the refutation, Sidney rebuts the criticisms made of poetry by “poet-haters.” Sidney outlines the four most serious charges against poetry: that poetry is a waste of time, that the poet is a liar, that poetry corrupts our morals, and that Plato banished poets from his ideal city in the Republic. He highlights that all of these objections rest on the power of poetry to move its audience, which means that they are actually reasons to praise poetry. Firstly, if poetry is written well, it has enormous power to move its audience to virtue. So, as entertainment, poetry is much better than any other harmful one. Secondly, imagination cannot be a lie, only facts can be. Thirdly, bad writing may pollute morals but not all writings. Finally, Plato, himself, was poetic in writing the very text, Republic, where he banished the poets. Thus, Sydney reestablished poetry’s virtues by refuting all the allegations put against it by his contemporaries.

Sidney brings “An Apology for Poetry” to a close on this hopeful note—but not before warning readers that, just as poetry has the power to immortalize people in verse, so too does it have the power to condemn others to be forgotten by ignoring them altogether. The critics of poetry should therefore take Sidney’s arguments seriously. His argument is stronger in this imitation of a traditional oratory.