Sidney's defence of poetry in An Apology for Poetry

Sidney's Apology is a true defence of poetry. The puritans of his age attacked poetry on many counts. Gosson wrote his document to show that poetry was very evil sane and it was full of abuse.

He quoted Plato as his authority and denounced poetry as something that weakened a nation, prompted lies and corrupted the taste, In this book, Sidney examines the objections against poetry, advanced by the Mysomousoi, poet-haters. They are like jesters or fools who are pleasant fault-finders who will correct the verb before they understand the noun.

The common complaint of these Mysomousoi is against rhyming and versing. But Sidney answers this charge by saying that it is not rhyming and versing that maketh poesy. The verse is not essential for poetry. It produces verbal harmony which helps to memorize the poem. It is the only fit speech for music.

Nursery rhymes have both versing and rhyming, yet they cannot be called true poetry, On the other hand, there were a host of poets who did not versify and there were a large number of versifiers who could not be classified as poets. So, Sidney boldly refutes this charge by saying-

One may be a poet without versing and a versifier without poetry. Verse was not the soul of poetry but it was a beautiful garb to beautify it.

Besides rhyming and versing there are four chief objections against poetry advanced by the Puritans. Sidney classifies them as the following:

1. First, poetry is a waste of time; there are many other fruitful branches of knowledge and a man might better spend his time in them than in poetry.

2. Secondly, poetry is the mother of lies.

3. Thirdly, poetry is the nurse of abuse, infecting us with many base desires.

4. Lastly, and chiefly, Plato has banished poets from his ideal Commonwealth.

Sidney dismissed the first charge very easily. He says that poetry is the noblest kind of learning because it teaches us virtue and because it moves our minds to pursue virtuðus action. There is no other branch of learning which can perform these two functions more effectively than poetry. Sidney firmly asserts that ink and paper cannot be to a more profitable purpose employed, poetry is the most useful arts.

Sidney vehemently denies the second charge that poetry is the mother of lies. He says that-

of all writers under the sun the poet is the least liar.

The astronomer and the geometrician may be found to have told a lie if their measurement of the height of stars proves to be wrong. A physician may prove to be a liar if the medicine, which he prescribed for the treatment of a disease, kills the patient. But the poet never tells lies because he affirms nothing. To lie is to affirm that to be true which is false.

The historian affirms many things which in the long run prove to be false. The Bible affirmed that there were four corners of the earth but now it is proved to be false. But the poet never lies because his aim is not to tell us ‘what is or is not’, but what should or should not be’. The poet in this way does not deal with fact but with fiction-fiction embodying the truth of an ideal kind. 

The third charge against poetry is that it is the nurse of abuse; poetry has a wanton or corrupting influence. It makes men effeminate. It is infected with love-theme and so fills the mind of men with base desires. Sidney agrees that in much of modern poetry there was a vicious treatment of love, but love itself is not bad because it shows an appreciation of Beauty. The fault lies not with poetry, but with the abuse of poetry.

So, poetry does not abuse men's wit, it is men's wit which abuses poetry, As regards its debilitating influence, Sidney replies that poets ‘have been a companion to camps’, for, martial men have always admired them. Moreover, if this is a fault, it's a fault common to learning, and not to poetry alone. On this ground, all books should be denounced. In fact, poetry is freer from this fault than other branches of knowledge, for poetry has always been used to move men to heroic action.

The fourth objection against poetry raised by the 'whippers' of poetry is that it is so bad that even Plato has banished poets from his ideal Commonwealth. But Sidney does not agree with those who say that Plato was against poets. He replies that Plato did not stand against poetry but against the poets who tried to abuse it.

Plato found fault that the poets of his time who filled the world with wrong opinions of the gods. So, Plato's objection, theological in nature. Sidney points out that Plato gives high and divine commendation tơ poetry in his lon. He has regarded the poet as ‘a light and winged and sacred thing’. 

Though Sidney defends poetry enthusiastically, we cannot lend our blind support to whatever he has said. Sidney makes a very sweeping statement when he says that there is no more fruitful knowledge than that which is supplied by poetry. Besides, when he says that poetry affirms nothing, it underscores the justification of poetry. He further says that poetry does not abuse men but it is men who abuse poetry. But we cannot deny the fact that poetry does depict amorous scenes, lustful scenes, scenes of immoral sexual relationships and so on.

Finally, as to Plato, Sidney has somewhat distorted Plato's views about poetry by depicting him as a patron rather than an adversary of poets. But on the whole, Sidney's contribution is praiseworthy. His defence extricated poetry from the exploitation of narrow dogmatic fundamentalism and offered it a permanent dignity.