BRITISH CRITICISM DURING THE RENAISSANCE--PART III—THE DEFENCE OF POETRY——Stephen Gosson & Sir Philip Sidney

BRITISH CRITICISM DURING THE RENAISSANCE --Blamiers

M. Phil English, Bharathiar University--Blamiers--

Approaches--Unit I

The RENAISSANCE III

BRITISH CRITICISM DURING THE RENAISSANCE

Summary by Dr. S. Sreekumar

Note: The summary is in FIVE parts

PART III—THE DEFENCE OF POETRY——Stephen Gosson & Sir Philip Sidney

In 1579 a critical controversy developed in England—the attack on poetry and its defence—partly occasioned by the impact of the Renaissance. Poetry and drama came under attack form the Puritans for their ‘harmful’ effect on morals. The attack was led by Stephen Gosson in a treatise entitled The School of Abuse dedicated without permission to Sir Philip Sidney.

« The book is described as a ‘pleasant invective against poets, pipers, players, jesters and such like caterpillars of the commonwealth’.

« The book denounces poets as the ‘fathers of lies’ and the theatre for robbing Greece of gluttony, Italy of wantonness, Spain of pride, France of deceit, and Dutchland of quaffing’.

« The title is important for Gosson is not attacking poetry but its abuse. He concedes that even in his day there are good plays that are morally wholesome.

The School of Abuse provoked two replies—one from Thomas Lodge and another from Sir Philip Sidney. Sidney’s work is called Apology for Poetry or The Defence of Poesy, written probably in 1580.

Lodge’s authority is based on the authority of the great poets of antiquity, Greek, Roman, and medieval, whose achievements belie the abuse hurled on their art by Gosson. Sidney’s is more reasoned and otherwise more important, and deserves a section to itself.

In the controversy, both parties made abundant use of their classical learning. Those who were against poetry argued so with the support of Plato while those who were in favor of poetry argued so with the help of Aristotle. Regular criticism in England began with this argument.

 

SIR PHILIP SIDNEY

He was the model of an Elizabethan gentleman. Mortally wounded in war and thirsty with excess of bleeding, he passed on the bottle of water, brought to him to a poor soldier in the same agony of thirst and death, saying, ‘Thy need is greater than mine’.

The Apology was intended as a reply to the Abuse. Sidney follows Gosson’s line of attack. Gosson has indicted poetry on four counts--

Œ    A man could employ his time more usefully than in poetry.  It is the mother of lies. It is the nurse of abuse. Plato has banished poets from his ideal Republic.

Sidney replies to each one of these charges, drawing on the ancient classics and the Italian writers of the Renaissance. He draws examples from Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch. He also quotes from Cicero, Virgil, Horace and Ovid.

The Argument of his Book

Sidney’s Apology is a defence of poetry against all the charges levelled against it since Plato. Sidney’s method is that of a logician. He examines it in whole and in parts.

µ    Poetry is the oldest of all branches of learning.

µ    It is superior to philosophy by its charm, to history by its universality, to science by its moral end, to law by its encouragement of human rather than civic goodness.

Sidney speaks about the various types of poetry.

The Pastoral pleases by its helpful comments on contemporary events and life.

The elegy pleases by its kindly pity.

The satire looks at the pleasant ridicule of folly.

The comedy pleases by its ridiculous imitation of the common errors of life, the tragedy by its moving demonstration of the uncertainty of the world.

The lyric delights us by its sweet praise of all that is praiseworthy, the epic by its representation of the lofty truths in a lofty manner

Then Sidney takes up four charges levelled against poetry by Gosson. Taking the first that a man might better spend his time than in poetry, Sidney says that nothing can teach and move better than poetry. Ink and paper cannot be to a more profitable purpose employed.

Next to say that the poet is a liar is to misunderstand his very purpose. The question of truth or falsehood arises only where a person tells of facts, past or present. The poet has no concern with these. He merely uses them to arrive at a higher truth. Hence the poet is not a liar.

About the next charge that poetry abuses men’s wit, Sidney says that this charge is commonly levelled against comedy, lyric, elegy and epic where love may be one of the chief elements. Sidney argues that we cannot consider love as a great sin. He further argues that it is not poetry that abuses men but men who abuse poetry. The nature of a thing is determined not by its misuse but by its right use.

The fourth charge which is associated with the name of Plato is also without foundation. Plato condemned the poets who abused poetry to misrepresent the Gods. Plato did not blame poetry because he believed that poetry is divinely inspired. Hence Sidney concludes that Plato is not the enemy of poets or of poetry but a friend.

Sidney’s Classicism

Sidney’s Apology is the first attempt to apply classical rules to English poetry. In ancient Greece and Rome the poet was respected as a ‘maker’. He is also considered as a prophet. Sidney wanted poets in England to be treated like that.

Sidney repeatedly stresses the teaching function of poetry. In this he resembles Plato, Aristotle or Horace. In his definition of poetry he follows both Aristotle and Horace. ‘Poesy is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in his word ‘mimesis’……with this end, to teach and delight’.

Aristotle had stressed the unity of action as an important condition of a well-knit plot—the unities of time and place are nowhere explicitly stated by him, to say nothing of their being given a place of importance in the plot. But the Renaissance interpreters of Aristotle, particularly Casterlvetro saw them clearly implied in the unity of action and some of his indirect statements to this effect. For a plot to be well-knit, they argued it was necessary for it to be confined to ‘a single revolution of the sun’, or twenty-four hours, and as a corollary of it, to a single place of action.

Following this argument, Sidney also supports the unity of time and place, along with that of action. He praises Gorboduc highly for its Senecan technique which in fact was the only important tragedy written till his day.

Sidney has no liking for tragic-comedy. While Aristotle says nothing of it, it was unknown to the Greeks. It is clearly ruled out of order by the condition of the unity of action, requiring only one set of events to be represented. During the time of Sidney very sub-standard tragic-comedies were presented on the stage and he denounces them all as ‘those gross absurdities…neither right tragedies, nor right comedies, mingling kings and clowns, not because the matter so carrieth it, but thrust in clowns to play a part in majestical matters, with neither decency nor discretion’.

It has to be pointed out that Sidney’s whole critical outlook in these two matters of the unities and the tragic-comedy was affected by the absence of really good English plays till his time.

However with all his adoration of the classics he was still an Elizabethan at heart, one who is more himself in his lyrics and sonnets than in his Apology, where he is only ‘his masters’ voice.

Sydney’s Advocacy of Classical Metres

Sidney  was a member of the ‘Areopagus’. Hence he was full of appreciation for the classical unrhymed verse. He saw metre as only an ornament. ‘It is not rhyming and versing that maketh a poet, no more than a long gown maketh an advocate, who though he pleaded in armour should be an advocate and no soldier. Poetry is the art of inventing new things, better than this world can offer, and even prose that does so is poetry. But once again though he was a classical scholar, he was also an English man with his native love of rhyme or verse. His love for the classics is ultimately reconciled to his love of the native tradition.

Sydney as a critic

Though Sydney professes to follow Aristotle his conception of poetry is different from Aristotle’s. To Aristotle poetry was an art of imitation for the natural pleasure imitation affords. To Sidney it is an art of imitation for  a specific purpose. It imitates to teach and delight. Those who practice it are called makers and prophets. Poetry is superior to philosophy, history, law and science.

Sidney differs with Aristotle in the meaning he gives for imitation. The poet according to Sidney lifts up the world with the power of his own invention. The world of Nature is brazen. The poet makes it golden. Hence poetry is not mere imitation, it is invention or creation. It creates a new world altogether for the edification and delight of the reader.

Sidney is closer to Plato also in his view of poetry. Plato had found fault with poetry for being an imitation of an imitation. The poet imitates objects of Nature which are themselves imitations of the objects in the external world.

Sidney argues that the poet takes the brazen world and makes it golden. In creating the golden world, the poet imitates the world of Ideas. He does not copy the common world. It is surprising that this thought does not occur to Aristotle. Thus Sidney answers the charge levelled by Plato convincingly. He makes poetry what Plato wished it to be—a vision of the Idea itself rather than its copy and a force for the perfection of the soul. The Apology is not only a reply to Gosson but it is also a reply to Plato.

To follow——

PART IV—CLASSICAL & NATIVE VERSIFICATION

PART V—Bacon & Jonson

Study material for MPhil English students of Bharathiar University by Dr. S. Sreekumar