Nature and Function of Poetry According to Philips Sidney

Sidney, following Aristotle's concept of Mimesis, defines poetry as an art of imitation. He explains imitation as representation the aim of which is to teach, and to delight. He explains three kinds of poetry—(I) divine poetry such as is to be found in the Bible (II) philosophical and moral poetry produced by ancient poets and (III) proper poetry the sort with which Sidney is directly concerned. It is this third kind of poetry which imitates, it delights and teaches; and "moves" the minds to goodness.

Then Sidney proceeds to elaborate the view that poetry is an imitation. The poet, like other men learning, imitates the objects of Nature. However, the poet goes beyond Nature. The poet is carried forward and upward by the vigour of his own invention and imagination, in fact, build up another Nature. The poet either makes things better than those which exist in Nature, or makes absolutely new forms such as do not exist in Nature before. The poet creates such new forms as the demi-gods, Cyclops, and Furies. The world, which the poet depicts in his work, is more beautiful than the real world. Poet’s world is a golden world as distinguished from the brazen world of Nature. The poet portrays human beings of the kind who never existed in Nature. Nature has- never created such a constant friend as Pylades, such a valiant man as Orlando, such a true prince as Cyrus, so excellent a man in every way as Aeneas. All these men were created by poets. The Greeks, says Sidney were fully justified in giving to the poet the title of a "maker". To Sidney, therefore, a maker is a creator. Indeed, the creative faculty is the highest gift with which man has been blessed; and this creative faculty is found in the poet to a greater extent than in any other kind of man. Thus Sidney does not regard poetic imitation as something slavish. The poet's imitation of Nature is not a servile imitation. His imitation of nature is not a tame copy of what is to be seen and found in real world. The poet rises above this world of reality. As Sidney puts it, the poet "transcends Nature". The imagination of the poet transmutes and transfigures reality. Here of course, Sidney is on very firm ground. The creative aspect of poetry must be recognized; and Sidney rendered great service to literary criticism by recognizing and emphasizing it.

Sidney defends poetry by pointing out that poetry was the earliest form of composition everywhere, and that for a long time the philosophers of ancient Greece appeared to the world in the guise of poets, while even the historians readily borrowed the poetic style of writing. Among the ancient Romans a poet was called "Vates", meaning a diviner or a prophet. The ancient Greeks regarded the poet as a "maker". The poet, says Sidney, imitates the "works of Nature, as do other artists and men of learning. But the poet, while imitating Nature, transcends it and builds a new Nature. Poetry is superior to both philosophy and history so far as teaching virtue and urging human beings to live virtuously. The philosopher teaches only by precept, and the historian teaches only by example. The poet employs both the method of precept and the method of example. The philosopher conveys virtue in an abstract manner. But the poet conveys virtue by a concrete portrayal of virtuous characters. The poet is therefore superior to the philosopher. As for the historian, he describes virtue and vice through actual historical examples; but he has to remain tied to what has actually happened. The poet can mould the facts of life in any way he likes so, he has a greater freedom than the historian. History describes what was actually done while poetry tells what is fit to be said or what is fit to be done according to the law of probability or necessity. Besides, history deals with the particular, while poetry deals with the universal. Quoting Aristotle, Sidney says that poetry is more philosophical and more serious than history. Poetry is superior to philosophy because it has the power to stir or move the mind of the reader in a way philosophy cannot do. The poet wins the mind of the reader.

            According to Sidney, Poetry teaches and delights; but that is not all. Sidney also points out the power of poetry to move the mind and to stir the heart. It is by its power to move the minds it influences the behaviour and conduct. After reading Homer's Odyssey, and after going through the incident of Aeneas everybody would like to perform a deed of similar virtue. Menenius Agrippa, the statesman was able by using a poetical device in his oration, to avert a civil war in Rome. These examples show that the poet, using delight as his instrument, influences the mind of the readers more effectively than any other art does. As virtue is the most excellent end of all worldly learning, so is poetry the most familiar way to teach virtue. It is wrong to condemn or censure poetry in any of its forms, says Sidney. He then goes on to defend the various forms of poetry and states the benefits of pastoral poetry, elegiac poetry, comic and satiric poetry, tragic poetry, heroic poetry, etc. Sidney speaks of lyrical poetry: "I never heard the old song of Percy and Douglas that I found not my heart moved more than with a trumpet."

Sidney comes very close to Longinus' view about the power of poetry to "transport". In this respect, Sidney takes up a position which links him with romantic poets though, on the whole, he is a neo-classical critic. The only thing which jars upon minds is Sidney's repeated emphasis upon the moral and didactic aim of poetry. But here it should be remembered the context in which Sidney puts this emphasis on the moral aspect of poetry. Poetry was censured by the Puritans and it was necessary for Sidney to meet the challenge which men like Stephen Gosson were flinging at it.

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 an astronomer, a geometrician, or a physician may tell lies but 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.

As regards the stylistic qualities of poetry. Sidney has some very useful suggestions to offer. He condemns the use of gaudy and ostentatious diction which he compares to a prostitute who has tried to beautify herself by an excessive use of cosmetics. He condemns the use of far-fetched words which appear like strangers to readers. He also condemns the, fantastic devices which were used in his time to make the writing appear attractive. He condemns those writers who maintained a collection of high-sounding words. He censures the poets for drawing their metaphors from all kinds of miscellaneous sources such as the stories of beasts, birds, and fishes. He also says that an excess in the use of metaphors is highly undesirable. A metaphor should be used only to make an idea more clear and to convince a reader. Beyond that, it is a waste of words to use metaphors.

Another very important point which Sidney makes is that rhyme, or verse, or metre is not indispensable to poetry. He says, "It is not rhyming and versing that maketh a poet", just as it is not a long gown which maketh an advocate. The poet is recognized by the notable images of virtues and vices which he offers in his work, and which impart both delight and instruction. The work of a poet is distinguished by its delightful teaching. However, Sidney admits that a large majority of poets have written in metre. Here we find it difficult to agree with Sidney. It is true that many other writers too have regarded metre as an ornament of poetry and as a device which lends greater charm to poetry; but this is only a theoretical position. Even Wordsworth declared that metre was not essential to poetry, and Coleridge in this respect agreed with Wordsworth. Both these men took up the position that metre was not indispensable to poetry, but it was yet highly desirable and even necessary. Now, to assert that poetry can dispense with metre is an extreme position. This position is almost untenable. The actual practice of poets shows that metre is very much an integral part of poetry. Metre and verse are certainly an ornament of poetry, but this ornament cannot be discarded without causing damage to it. Historical accounts and philosophical propositions certainly do not become, poetry by being put into metre; but even the most imaginative nights of the fancy and the most imaginative inventions, when clothed in words, do not become poetry unless they are clothed in metrical language.


Compiled by: Prof Muhammad Qasim Nazar
Contact: 0334-8073431