Charges Against Poetry &

Sidney’s defence of poetry

Q.2.     What objections or imputations to poetry does Sidney deal with in his Apology for Poetry.

Ans. First of all, Sidney disposes of the objection raised against poetry. He says, there are persons who deride poetry and mock at poets just to show their own importance. Such persons are like the clowns and jesters. However, some critics of poetry are serious in their attack. Among them are those who attack poetry because it employs metre and rhyme. To them, Sidney's reply is that the use of, verse and rhyme is by no means essential to poetry. Besides, verse and rhyme are certainly not a demerit of poetry. Indeed, verse and rhyme add to the charm of poetry, and are thus not to be despised at all. Sidney then proceeds to refute charges against poetry.

There are four serious charges against poetry:

The first objection against poetry, considered by Sidney, is that a man can better spend his time in acquiring more fruitful knowledges than in the reading of poetry. The Second charge is that poetry is the mother of lies. The third charge is that poetry is the nurse of abuse, that it infects the readers with many vicious desires and that, poetry lures the mind of the reader to sinful fancies. Poetry, and especially comedy, weakens the minds of the readers, people are lulled asleep by the entertainment provided by poetry. The fourth charge against poetry is that Plato had banished it from his Republic.

In connection with the first charge against poetry, Sidney says that poetry is the noblest kind of learning because it teaches us virtue and it moves our minds to pursue virtuous action. There is no other branch of learning which can perform these two functions more effectively than poetry. Sidney asserts that there is no other knowledge more fruitful in this world than poetry. Poetry is supreme in this respect; and there is no other form of learning or study which can excell it from this point of view.

As for the second charge, Sidney vehemently denies that poetry is the mother of lies. Of all the writers in this world, says Sidney, the poet is the least liar. He says, an astronomer may tell a lie when he records his measurements of the height of the stars, because his measurements may prove to be wrong. A geometrician may lie if his propositions prove to be false. A physician may prove to be a liar if the medicine kills the patient. But the poet never tells lies because he affirms nothing. A poet never affirms anything. A historian in his chronicle of events may tell many lies because he affirms many things and because there is no guarantee whatever he has affirmed is absolutely true. But the poet never employs any trick to convince his readers of the truth of what he writes. In fact, he is so scrupulous about telling the truth that before beginning to write a poem, he invokes the blessings of the Muses. The poet does not describe what is or what is not; he strives to describe what should be or what should not be. Even if what he describes is not true, yet he cannot be called a liar because he does not affirm truth. Nobody can say that Aesop lied in writing his stories about animals and beasts. Aesop never claimed that his stories were literally true. His stories are to be interpreted in an allegorical sense. When we read history, we expose nothing but the truth; and yet history is found to contain many falsehoods. When we read poetry, we expect only fictions; imaginative plot of a story which yields much useful instruction. And if the poets give names to the imaginary characters, they still cannot be accused of telling lie. They give names to their characters, just as the pieces on a chess-board have such names as the bishop, the king, and the queen. If a poet gives the name of Cyrus or Aeneas to a character, his only purpose is to show what a man of fame and fortune might do in the course of his life.

Sidney then turns to the third charge against poetry. Poetry is accused of abusing men's wit. It is accused of corrupting people and leading them towards lustful love and sinful actions. Comedy weakens the minds of the reader because of the abundance of amorous conceits, which it contains. Lyrical poetry is equally responsible in this respect because of the passion of love, which it depicts. Even elegiac poetry, laments the absence of a mistress. To this charge, Sidney replies by asserting that, even if love of beauty is regarded as a sin and even if the passion of love is regarded as wicked, poetry in itself is not the cause of any moral corruption. If, at all, poetry depicts lustful love, it is not the fault of poetry but the fault of certain poets who have written that kind of poetry. Sidney' concludes that it is not poetry, which corrupts men's minds but it is the minds of some particular men which corrupt poetry. Poetry, like painting can infect the minds of the people by depicting unworthy objects just as it can elevate the minds of men by depicting noble scenes. Sidney says if a painter depicts Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac, or Judith killing Holofernes, or David fighting with Goliath, he will be offering delight to the beholders. If a painter paints ignoble and immoral scenes, he would displease the beholders. But the misuse of his art does not mean that the art itself is contemptible.' Contemptible is the artist who misuses his art. If poetry is misused, it can do more harm. But this does not mean that poetry itself is to blame for it. It is the misuse of poetry that is to blame. Even medicine, which aims at curing disease, can prove fatal if it is misused. A knowledge of law helps to secure justice; but even law can foster and increase injustice. Even to utter the name of God in a wicked context is sinful. A man uttering God's name in this way is accused of blasphemy. In short, it has to be admitted that, while poetry is a powerful instrument for good, it becomes a powerful instrument for evil when it is misused.

There is also the allegation that poetry renders men effeminate and weakens the war-like spirit in men. This allegation arises from sheer ignorance. Those who make this allegation are as ignorant as were those Goths who wanted to burn the libraries of the civilized nations, whom they had conquered. Poetry has always aroused and stirred the war-like instincts of man, and never weakened those instincts. Poetry has always been the companion of military camps. The stories of Orlando Furioso and of King Arthur can never displease a soldier, though the subtle terms and phrases of the philosophers may displease him. Even the Turks and the Tartars were delighted with poets. It was from Homer, that the ancient Greeks received their first lessons in courage and bravery. Alexander the great was more attracted by the poet Homer than by the philosopher Aristotle who had been his tutor. In short, poetry activates and stimulates the war-like Instincts of men.

The fourth, charge against poetry seems to Sidney to be the weightiest because it is supposed to have come from the great philosopher, Plato. It is generally believed that Plato was a natural enemy of poets. Sidney says that Plato himself was highly poetical in his writings. In any case, says Sidney, Plato should not have accused poetry of being immoral as Plato’s Republic was itself so immoral as to permit promiscuous sexual relationship. Plato objected to poetry because poetry depicted the gods as lustful and revengeful and also as suffering from many other vices. Here the poets themselves were not at fault because the poets had represented the gods simply in accordance with the prevailing beliefs of the time.

Sidney then says that actually Plato regarded poetry as an exalted pursuit. He did not banish poetry from his Republic; it was the abuse or misuse of poetry which he banished. Plato regarded poetry as the product of divine inspiration. Sidney therefore regards Plato not as an adversary of poets but as their patron.

Sidney then supports the high claims of poetry by mentioning many illustrious men who have expressed a very exalted opinion of it. All the Alexanders, all the Caesars, and all the Scipios were supporter of poetry. Even Socrates, who was a philosopher, spent part of his age in versifying Aesop's fables. The great philosopher Aristotle wrote a treatise on the art of poetry, and he would not have done so if he did not have a high opinion of poetry. In view of all this, poetry deserves high praise. Sidney concludes his defence of poetry by saying that it is not an art of lies but is often a repository of true doctrine; that it does not induce effeminacy but stirs courage; that it does not corrupt a man's wit but strengthens it; neither was banished by Plato but honoured by him and we should bestow more laurels upon the heads of poets than we have showered upon them.

Sidney regards poetry as the most fruitful form of knowledge and therefore as the monarch of all branches of learning. In this way Sidney glorifies poetry and ranks it not only above philosophy and history but also above the sciences like astronomy and geometry. He goes to the extreme when he says: "I still and utterly deny that there is, sprung out of earth a more fruitful knowledge (than poetry). It is off the mark to assert that poetry is the profoundest or the most fertile cause of knowledge. Poetry has its rightful place as an art which offers delight, pleasure, and moral instruction, which reveals the mysteries of the human mind and of human nature, which consoles in distresses and sorrows, which uplifts souls and transports into another world, and makes lives worth living. Similarly Sidney goes off the mark when he says that an astronomer, a geometrician, or a physician may tell lies but that a poet does not tell lies. We agree that a poet does not tell lies, but we do not admit that a scientist tells lies either. A scientist, whether he is an astronomer, a geometrician, or a physician, aims wholly at truth.

            Then there is the question of poetry’s telling lies. “Lies” is, of course, a very strong word to be used here. But poetry does abound in fictions; and fictions are not true or factual, though they may be based on facts. Furthermore Sidney is unjust in calling astronomers and geometricians liars. What he calls lies are only hypotheses or assumptions which ultimately lead to the discovery of truth. It is of course wrong to call a poet a liar; but it is even more wrong to call a scientist a liar. Similarly, Sidney's argument that it is not poetry which corrupts men but that it is men who corrupt poetry. The fact remains that poetry does depict amorous scenes, scenes of immoral sexual relationships, and so on. Love poetry, and even prose works contain stories of seduction, rape, adultery, and incest and they do have a harmful effect upon young minds. The sensuous descriptions of love making, even when love is chaste, produce a similar effect with their references to the beauty and charm of the female face, form, and figure. Shakespeare's poem, The Rape of Lucrece, despite all the moral instruction does stimulate sexual desire in a young reader as do the films. Sidney has somewhat distorted Plato's views about poetry by depicting him as a patron rather than an adversary of poets.

Sidney insists on moral value of poetry. Actually, he sums up his defence in the phrase “delightful teaching”; However, moral purpose should not become too prominent and should not supersede the artistic or aesthetic purpose. While Sidney insists more upon the moral purpose of poetry, though he certainly does not ignore the delight which poetry provides. Sidney does take notice of all these aspects of poetry including direction, metaphor, and metre; but he over-emphasizes the moral aspect.

Points to Remember:

1. Introduction.
2. Sidney disposes of the objections against poetry.
3. There are four serious charges against poetry:

(I)                Poetry is the waste of time.

(II)             Poetry is the mother of lies.

(III)          It is nurse of abuse  

(IV)          Plato had rightly banished the poets from his ideal world.

4. Poetry is superior to all knowledge’s.
5. Conclusion.

*****