David Kim

Lit & Culture of the Renaissance

Defense of Poesy

Feb 7, 2011

Much like the horse is to the horseman, poetry is the medium in which man (the poet) can

explore beyond the earthly feet that bind his peers. Sidney ascertains that only poetry can

accomplish this feat. For, “Only the poet, disdaining to be tied to any subjection, lifted up with the

vigour of his own invention… grows in effect another nature (343).” This Sidney contrasts to the

limitations of other “more worthwhile” fields of study, which observe only what is or what has been.

“The astronomer looking to the stars might fall into a ditch (348),”The historian… authorizing himself

upon other histories, who’s greatest authorities are built upon… hearsay (349). As for the physician,

metaphysic, rhetorician and logician, Sidney argues that all are bound by the rules of nature- or

“empirical reality (343).” But it is only through poetry that one can look beyond these laws and

create that what could be. “Nature never set forth the earth in so rich tapestry as poets have done,” to

Sidney, “…poets only deliver a golden”- a perfect world (343). Because of this gift, bestowed only to

poets, Sidney believes a primary role of poetry is as a tool for inspiration towards “virtuous action”

(349)- a passionate action that he laments philosophers of not being able to ignite. “The philosopher’

saith he, teacheth a diputative virtue, but I do an active… if he make the song-book, I put the learner’s

hand to the lute; if he be the guide, I am the light (350).”

Because Sidney affirms poetry should lead one towards only noble endeavors, he establishes

that only such poetry is good poetry- true poetry. Not surprising, Sidney states the heroical form is

“the best and most accomplished of poetry (365).” This belief he uses as a counter argument for the

accusations against poetry that, “abuseth men’s wit, training it to wanton sinfulness and lustful love,“

by stating poetry does not abuse man’s wit, “but that man’s wit abuseth poetry (371)”. Sidney himself

condones comedies that cause laughter in matters that one cannot possibly take delight, and

tragedies that lack moral purpose- these works Sidney attributes to “poet-apes (390).” Sidney goes

on further to say that the notion of Plato against poetry is a misconception- even accusing Plato of

being a poet. Sidney believes that Plato rejected the abuses done to poetry by poets, not of poetry
itself. “Plato found fault that the poets of his time filled the world with wrong opinions of gods…

therefore would not have the youth depraved with such opinions (376).

After Sidney highlights the differences between the true poet and the “poet-apes”- right

verses wrong poetry- he brings forth examples that elude to the kinds of people “proper” poetry can

culture. “Sweet poesy, that hath anciently had kings, emperors, senators, great captains… David,

Adrian, Sophocles… King Francis of France, King James of Scotland… (378).” Sidney chooses to use

the term “poesy” here as oppose to poetry. Poesy, Sidney defines as, “the skill or craft of making

(342).” By choosing the term “poesy,” Sidney does not imply that any of his examples are necessarily

poets, but that they have the mind for poetry and an ability to be (and have been) inspired by it

(inspiration that leads to virtuous action that leads to success). Sidney also chooses to use examples

of Kings from other countries/regions, demonstrating that the power of poetry is universal.

Sidney makes a bold statement contributing the achievements of the great men above to

poetry. However, as Sidney explains, “the philosopher teacheth, but he teacheth obscurely so as the

learned only can understand him… the poet is food for the tenderest stomach… Aesop’s tales give

good proof (353),” and that “the philosopher bestoweth but a wordish description… to a man that

had never seen an elephant… who should tell him most exquisitely all their shapes, colour…(351)”

and finally that, “the historian, bound to tell things as things were, cannot be liberal (without he will

be poetical)(354).” Sidney purposes that fields of study without poetry do not inspire, that they do

not create “delight,” and “for who will be taught, if he be not moved with desire to be taught (357)?”

Sidney then asks what is the point of even being taught if one is not moved to do (praxis) by ones

teachings.

108
When Sorrow (using mine own fire’s might)
Melts down his lead into my boiling breast,
Through that dark furnace to my heart oppressed
There shines a joy from thee, my only light;
But soon as thought of thee breeds my delight,
And my young soul flutters to thee, his nest,
Most rude Despair, my daily unbidden guest,
Clips straight my wings, straight wraps me in his night,
And makes me then bow down my head and say,
“Ah, what doth Phoebus’ gold that wretch avail,
Whom iron doors do keep from use of day?”
So strangely (alas) they works in me prevail,
 That in my woes for thee thou art my joy,
And in my joys for thee my only annoy.

(Personal Interpretation)

If looked at as a love poem, sonnet 108 suggests that Astrophil, in sadness, fuel by his

passionate desire (“my own fire’s might), embodies his pain like molten lead deep within his heart.

The dark furnace appears symbolic of Hell, and his heart (or emotional state) is trapped within this

Hell. There is only one joy for Astrophil- this presumably is Stella (symbolized by light). Despite this

only light of happiness, Astrophil is soon met with Despair (capitalized, which could suggestion a

personification of a specific person). What or who ever Despair is, it stops Astrophil cold (“clips

straight my wings”), and in the next lines Astrophil questions why this must be. Astrophil than states

his feelings (of desire) still remain (“prevail”). In the last two lines, Astrophil states that by yearning

for [Stella] he finds joy, and despite stating earlier Stella was his only joy, she is also the only cause of

his pain.

The 108th sonnet of Astrophil and Stella appears to be an abandonment of Sidney’s poetic

doctrines established per The Defense of Poesy. First, a small quibble, Sidney stated that “it is not

rhyming and versing that maketh a poet (347),” yet this poem does rhyme, and (though the writer of

this paper is not very knowledgeable in poetic structure) appears to use a familiar structure scheme.

Also, by choosing a structure frequently employed, Sidney “takes” of another’s creation, which he

opposes to doing- as exemplified in sonnet 74, “I am no pick-purse of another’s wit.” However, these

are minor infractions on Sidney’s part, and can be easily forgiven due to the nature of what he is

writing- a sonnet. However, he also references Phoebus, which, apart from being cliché (reference of

a god in a love poem), is a Greek god (Sidney not only takes of other’s wits, but of other cultures as

well). Sidney also writes about delighting in what causes suffering- the mark of a poor comedy.

Furthermore, if meant to be tragic, the story lacks moral purpose (it would be a poor tragedy as

well). Lastly, this is the closing sonnet of Astrophil and Stella, however, this sonnet does not bring

resolution to the piece. “It will be found that one verse did but beget another, without ordering at the

first what should be at the last; which becomes a confused mass of words, with a tingling sound of

rhyme, barely accompanied with reason (381).” This quote seems to accurately describe this piece.
 Perhaps I look too critically on the 108th sonnet, but I analyzed it in Sidney’s likeness. Sidney

had established an almost unreasonable doctrine with which he believed proper poetry must come. It

is not so strange then, that even Sidney claims to have “slipped into the title of poet (339),” and felt

the need to defend this “unelected vocation”. However, despite seeming to have failed to live up to his

impossibly high standards, Sidney was successful in proving a key point from the Defense of Poesy.

Sidney, by writing the Defense of Poesy, had taken up vitreous action, impassioned by the inspiration-

poetry.