Elementy klasyczne w Obronie poezji Filipa Sidney’a

Abstract

CLASSICAL ELEMENTS IN SIDNEY’S DEFENCE OF POESY

The Defence of Poesy, which is considered the most outstanding piece of English criticism in the sixteenth century, was written as a reply to Stephen Gosson’s School of Abuse most probably in 1583. It was not meant by the author to be a treatise on poetry, but simply a refutation of all the attacks made upon poetry in the course of centuries. On this occasion Sidney, according to his own words, tried “to explain to his age. confused and perplexed, what poetry really was, and what it stood for in the life of community“. There are in his conception of poetry many elements that can be traced back to classical antiquity.

The present paper is dealing with variotis elements of Sidney’s theory of poetry from the angle of their dependence on earlier conceptions.

a) The source of poetical inspiration.

Sidney calls poetry “a heart ravishing knowledge“ and reminds the reader of the name “vates“ given to poets by the ancients because of the prophetic character of poetry. He also says that the poet “with the force of a divine breath bringeth things forth far -surpassing the dooings of nature“.

All this makes us inclined to believe that Plato’s conception of poetry was at the basis of what Sidney says about poetical inspiration. But the other hand he says explicitly: Plato “attributeth unto Poesie more then my selfe doe, namely to be a very inspiring of a divine force farre above mans wit“. That is why we should understand the words “the force of divine breath“ as simply meaning a special creative power having its source in human nature and not in God. He may have remembered here Cicero’s words: poetarn natura ipsa valere ct mentis viribus excilari et quasi divino quodam spiritu inflari. It is also possible that this way of expressing his thought was influenced by Hawes and Skelton who had been of the opinion that all poetry proceeded from the bosom of God.

b) Poetry as an art of imitation.

Is his definition of poetry Sidney quotes Aristotle’s term Mimesis. The conception of art as imitation of nature was generally accepted with the ancients. It may be found also in the theories of Plato and Aristotle, the two philosophers only differ when appreciating the relation of this imitation to the truth. For Plato all imitative art is an instrument of deception because it imitates only the imperfect reflection of the true world of Ideas. For Aristotle imitation is a means of learning the truth and the tendency to imitate things is innate in human nature. Poetic fiction is for him a non-existing but possible combination of existing elements. Sidney follows the latter theory of poetry, but he is not always consistent and sometimes wants poetry to present a better world than that of nature. In his Defence of Poesy Aristotle’s theory becomes blurred under the influence of Platonic ideas which most probably Sidney must have taken from Minturno and Scaliger.

“Imitation“ has also another meaning with Sidney. It simply means following the example of the greatest poets of all nations and especially of the ancients. In this he follows the precepts of Horace and Quintilian and is a forerunner of the next period in Englicli literature.

c) The end of poetry.

For Sidney the end of poetry is „to teach and delight“. The didactic function of poetry was postulated by the ancients Greeks and above all by the Romans. Horace repeats several times that poetry should give not only pleasure but also moral teaching. The same is Cicero’s wish concerning rhetoric. It may be said that in this respect Sidney was chiefly influenced by the Romans, but the opinions of the Renaissance literary critics, great admirers of Horace’s De arte poetica, were here not without consequence either.

d) The division of poetry.

The conception of poetry as an art of imitation is at the basis of Aristotelian division of poetry into epic, tragedy, comedy, dithyramb and lyric. Horace divides poetry according to the metre used by the poet. He enumerates epic, elegy, iambic, tragedy, comedy and lyric. Sidney does not follow either of them. After Scaliger he distinguishes three principal kinds: religious, didactic end creative poetry that is subdivided into heroic, tync, tragedy, comedy, satire, iambography, elegy and pastoral. The epic is for him the greatest poetical genre. This is the opinion prevailing in the Renaissance. To comedy and tragedy he pays special attention so it is worthwhile to treat them separately.

e) Comedy.

Sidney’s definition: “Comedy is an imitation of the common errors of our life which he (the poet) representeth in the most ridiculous and scor- nefull sort that may be, so as it is impossible that any beholder can be content to be such a one“ seems to be an interpretation of Aristotle’s opinion that comedy is a representation of persons inferior in their defects and deformities neither painful nor harmful.

In another place Sidney qualifies the kind of laughter which may be stirred up by comedy and although he himself refers there to Aristotle, he seems to repeat Cicero’s words from “De oratore“ II. 58.

He very strongly objects to such mixture of tragic and comic elements as can be found in tragi-comedies. In this he seems to follow Horace’s and Cicero’s teaching.

f) Tragedy.

When Sidney says that tragedy “maketh Kinges feare to be Tyrants, and Tyrants manifest their tirannicall humours nad teacheth the uncertainty of this world, and upon how weake foundations guilden rooofes are builded“ he seems to follow the Mediaeval conception of tragedy as the story of the fall of princes the aim of which is to teach about the vicissitudes of fortune. Most probably it was a Hellenistic modification of Aristotelian doctrine accepted by post-classical authorities as the authentic teaching of antiquity.

Sidney makes very much of the unities of time and place and his rules concerning those unities are very strict and clear. As to the unity of action he seems to take it for granted when he says that a poet should immediately jump in médias res of “that one action“ he has chosen to represent.

There is no doubt that he like other critics of the sixteenth century took the rule of the unity of action from the ancients.

In making so much of the two other unities he is probably influenced by Minturno, Scaliger and Castelvetro.

As a consequence of having accepted the unities of time and place Sidney wants a messenger to tell the audience what happened in some other place or at some other time following here Horace’s precept. He is also rather strict as far as characters are concerned. The characters must stand for virtues and vices personified. In that he is again at one with Aristotle and Horace.

g) The form of poetry.

Sidney like Aristotle thinks that poetry should not necessarily be written in verse but verse is an ornament that should not be contempted The best form of verse is for him the one created by the ancients therefore he wants English poets to introduce classical metres into their poetry. As for the choise of words he does not set any strict rules, he only wants the language not to be over — ornate.

To draw the final conclusion as to how much Sidney took over from the ancients and what came to him through the sixteenth century critics and commentators the paper shortly presents Philip Sidney’s classical education and the state of literary theory and criticism in Europe in his time. Against this background it may be better understood why Sidney’s literary theory reflects mostly the poetical doctrines of Aristotle and Horace and partly also those of Cicero and Quintilian slightly modified in some points by Castelvetro, Minturno and Scaliger.