Summary
Highlights
Sir Philip Sidney seeks to re-establish poetry's significance, which has been devalued in Elizabethan England. He posits that critics fail to grasp genuine poetry, judging it based on often inferior modern works. If understood correctly, poetry is the supreme art, as it teaches virtue and allows poets to envision a more perfect nature.
Sidney argues that poetry predates philosophy and history, with many classical thinkers writing poetically. He highlights the ancient respect for poets, evidenced by titles like 'vates' (seer/prophet) in Latin and 'poets' (maker) in Greek, signifying their ability to convey knowledge and create new realities like God.
Sidney defines poetry as an art of imitation that educates through pleasure, creating 'speaking pictures' that embody ideas. He focuses on 'right poets' who craft ideal forms of virtue, not limited by natural existence, to teach what it means to be good. Poetry surpasses history and philosophy in teaching virtue by presenting perfect examples in engaging narratives, making it a 'popular philosopher' that moves readers to act virtuously, similar to a medicine 'of cherries'.
Sidney refutes four main charges against poetry: that it's a waste of time, poets lie, poetry corrupts morals, and Plato banished poets. He counters that these objections inadvertently highlight poetry's immense power to move an audience, thus underscoring its potential for encouraging virtue.
In the conclusion, Sidney critiques contemporary English poetry, acknowledging its poor quality. He attributes this not to the English language itself or poetry as an art form, but to the ineptitude of poets and playwrights. He calls for educated poets to learn from classical sources, not through mere imitation, to unlock the expressive potential of the English language. Sidney ends on a hopeful note, reminding readers that poetry can immortalize or condemn, urging critics to heed his arguments.