|
ÃßÜÇÏíÜãÜí ÐåÜÈÜí
|
ÑÏ: Third Year's Students Come Here To Be One Hand
The 10th lecture: Ï.äÌáÇÁ
Now let us move to Sidney. The last thing we discussed was the comparison made by Sidney between poetry, philosophy, and history. And the part where we stopped was when he gives examples, he says:
P20
“Now therein of all sciences is our poet the monarch.”
He is the most important person.
And he gives different arts and different sciences. Until then, they called all sciences arts until the scientific revolution when science was separated from arts. So, during antiquity with Plato and Aristotle and at 15th and 16th centuries we still call all sciences arts because they needed talents. They did not go to a faculty of engineering to become engineer but they became engineers because it was a kind of art they developed it. So, all those sciences were considered arts. So, here he says, of all the other sciences of arts and he mentioned music and different kinds of music. We have poetry as the best. Of all those kinds, poetry describes nature better than all other sciences and arts because it creates another nature; it does not simply copy nature but it creates another kind of nature which is better. And he describes here the element of delight. What makes poetry better than other arts is that it does not only teach like Aristotle says but it has also this element of delight.
“That imitation whereof poetry is, hath the most conveniency to nature of all other; insomuch that, as Aristotle saith, those things which in themselves are horrible, as cruel battles, unnatural monsters, are made in poetical imitation delightful.”
So, this is the element that makes poetry superior to all other kinds of arts, it is that it makes things delightful. It presents a delightful nature because it does not simply copy nature as it is. The poet creates and adds from his imagination the element that makes a work of art more delightful even if he is describing the most horrible scenes yet he adds from his imagination that makes these scenes delightful.
Now, he continues the same idea of delight and he says that poetry like philosophy and history is a teacher of knowledge. What is the knowledge; the information, that is included in all kinds of learning? What is the most important thing that any kind of learning should teach? What is the moral that all kinds of learning should be teaching? Virtue. So, what makes you virtuous and what makes you vicious and how to become virtuous and how to stay away from being vicious, why? Because this will lead you to heaven and this will lead you to hell. This is the basic learning we get from any kind of learning whether it is philosophy, religion, or history. What do we learn? To imitate the good and to stay away from the bad. So, this is the basic learning in any kind of art or science that teaches. Now, according to Sidney, poetry is teaching like philosophy and all other kinds of learning; it is teaching virtue but it is not only teaching it, like philosophy, but it is presenting it in a delightful way. This makes people move to action. It is not like philosophy; philosophy says (this is good and this is bad), but what makes you do that, this is poetry. According to Sidney, poetry moves people to action, which makes poetry superior to all other kinds of learning. And that it is teaching virtue in a delightful manner that moves people towards action. Let us see where he says this.
P23
“By these, therefore, examples and reasons, I think it may be manifest that the poet, with that same hand of delight, doth draw the mind more effectually than any other art doth.’
All arts are supposed to teach and here the poet with a hand of delight teaches people more.
“And so a conclusion not unfitly ensueth: that as a virtue is the most excellent resting-place for all worldly learning to make his end of, so poetry, being the most familiar to teach it, and most princely to move towards it, in the most excellent work is the most excellent workman.”
What he concludes here is that all learnings should be teaching virtue. And poetry teaches virtue but it teaches it in a delightful manner and by so doing, it moves people towards virtue; to be virtuous, and this is why it is the most excellent work and the poet is the most excellent workman.
Now he moves to the parts and kinds of poetry.
“Now in his parts, kinds, or species, it is to be noted that some poesies have coupled together two or three kinds,”
What are these kinds of poetry? At first we have tragical and comical and then we have pastoral, elegiac, satiric, comic, tragic, lyric, and heroic. And then we have the conclusion of the first part.
P27
“Since, then, poetry is of all human learnings the most ancient and of most fatherly antiquity,”
The whole paragraph is very long and it is a conclusion of the first part.
There are no new points that I have to explain in the parts that I do not read in class but this does not mean that you do not read and study. The parts I skip, I skip them because there is nothing new to say. I do not have time to read everything. But when I say this is a conclusion, you have to read it because from it you can study the main sentences that you can use in your exam.
Then, we come to the second part of his essay and this is concerned with the objections that were raised against poetry at Sidney’s time by Gosson first and his contemporary critics who attacked poetry and used Plato’s argument. And of course Sidney defends against those accusations.
“First, truly, I note not only in these misomousoi, poet-haters, but in all that kind of people who seek a praise by dispraising others, that they do prodigally spend a great many wandering words in quips and scoffs,”
Now these people who are attacking poetry he considers them as fools because they do not understand poetry; they are just attacking poetry without good knowledge of it and he calls them good fools.
Now, the first accusation against poetry comes in the following paragraph:
“But that which giveth greatest scope to their scorning humours is rhyming and versing.”
He says that people are laughing at poetry and it has become as he said the laughing scoff of children. Why was poetry turning into something to laugh at? So, the first accusation is that poetry is full of rhyme. And what is the difference between poetry and verse? We usually use them together for the same meaning, but they are different. What is the difference between them?
Can poetic language have rhyme or not? If it does not have rhyme, how do we know it is poetic? It is figurative language. Here Sidney is writing an essay; he is not writing a poem but he is using figures of speech. He is using figurative language. It is very poetic. Shakespeare wrote most of his plays in blank verse. We say it is poetic drama or dramatic poetry. So, it is a kind of poetry. Verse is what distinguishes the rhyme, and the rhythm, whether it is end of line rhyme or interior rhyme or the division of a sentence into feet and each foot is divided into syllables, how many syllables and each syllable is either stressed or unstressed, we look for the accentuated syllables and so on. So, this is verse. But it is not poetry. Poetry can make use of verse but verse is not always poetry. You can have two lines rhyming with no meaning. So, it does not necessarily be poetry and this is what Sidney is figuring here. He is going to tell us that not all verse is poetry and not all poetry is given in verse. But what is more important to Sidney, verse or poetry? Poetry is more important. Because people are used to use verse in poetry, so it became one of the elements that are found in poetry. And people at his time were laughing at this kind of rhyming and versing, saying anybody can write two rhyming lines and would call himself a poet. This was actually happening at that time. What was happening at that time? What was the most outstanding quality found in the 16th century? What was the most famous kind of poetry? Sonnets, lyrics, and ballads. They were fond of music; songs. So, everybody wrote rhyme to be song. Shakespeare in all his plays has songs in them and sonnets. And they all wrote sonnets sequences. This was the most famous kind. So, the critics at that time were criticizing this saying that poetry of the time was mainly verse. Now you have taken the sonnets of that time, what was the most important topic of those sonnets? Courtly love. What was courtly love about? The situations of courtly love, what were they? Everyone was falling in love with the wrong person and this is why they were rejected. Because they cannot continue the relation but they have relations. This was the corruption of the court at that time. People at that time in the court were the people who can read and write because the common people cannot read and write. So, who was writing poetry at that time? The nobility; the people of the court, who can read and write, who were educated. What kind of poetry did they write? Courtly love, songs and sonnets. And then why did they write songs and sonnets? Why did they write about the courtly love? They use them as letters to their lovers. Poetry was very important at that time; it was a way to a woman’s heart. So, all people at that time were trying to write poetry and if they could not, they would go and buy poems.
“But that which giveth greatest scope to their scorning humours is rhyming and versing.”
So, many people are making fun of poetry because it is full of rhyme and verse. He says there is a difference between rhyme and verse. Not all poetry is rhyme and not all verse is poetry. But if we have verse in poetry, what is wrong in there? He says,
P29
“It is already said, it is not rhyming and versing that maketh poesy. One may be a poet without versing, and a versifier without poetry. But yet presuppose it were inseparable truly it were an inseparable commendation.”
If we do not separate between verse and poetry, if we poetry that have a verse in it, what is wrong in that? He says that verse takes music. And what is music? Between brackets he defines the music.
“(music I say, the most divine striker of the senses,)”
So, if I have music in poetry which strikes the senses and alerts the senses and makes people want to move and want to act, what is wrong in that?
“thus much is undoubtedly true, that if reading be foolish without remembering, memory being the only treasurer of knowledge, those words which are fittest for memory are likewise most convenient for knowledge.”
Now, music helps people to memorize. Wherever you have rhymed words, it is easy to remember them. If I have two passages; one written in prose and the other written in verse, which one you are going to memorize quickly and will stick to your mind? Verse.
So, if verse with its music helps people to memorize, then what is better than a poem which includes knowledge that is going to stick to your mind because of its music? What is wrong in that? So, here he is defending verse and rhyme saying that they are different. Verse is different from poetry. But if we have verse, what is wrong in that? It helps people to memorize and it makes the knowledge stick in your mind; stick in the memory.
“now that verse far exceedeth prose in the knitting up of the memory, the reason is manifest;”
If we have a passage of prose and a passage of verse, which of them will stick to the memory better? The reason is manifest.
“the words being so set, as one cannot be lost but the whole work fails.”
When I have a whole poem with a whole meaning given to us as one whole, the whole meaning will stick to our mind. But sometimes, you read a whole text with many ideas, you cannot memorize all but if it is all concentrated in a rhymed verse, then it will stick better to your mind.
At the end of the same paragraph, he says,
“So that verse being in itself sweet and orderly, and being best for memory,”
Verse makes the words arranged in an orderly manner and it is sweet; it has a nice sound in it. And it sticks to the mind better than any other form.
“the only handle of knowledge, it must be in jest that any man can speak against it.”
So, since it gives us knowledge, it is the best way to handle knowledge; it is the best way to give knowledge. So, why do people speak against verse? Why do people attack verse?
Then, he moves to the following accusation. This was the first accusation; versing and rhyming. The second accusation is a combined accusation made of five points. So, you can divide the accusations into two or you can divide them into six. You take (versing and rhyming) as number on and the following five as two, three, four, five, and six. Or one and two, and two is divided into five. It is up to you.
“Now, then, go we to the most important imputations laid to the poor poets: for aught I can yet learn they are these.
First, that there being many other more fruitful knowledge, a man might better spend his time in them than in this.”
So, the first of these accusations is that poetry is a waste of time; that man can find better things to do with his time, to spend his time in better ways and his mind would be devoted to another kind of learning better than poetry.
“Secondly, that it is the mother of lies.
Thirdly, that it is the nurse of abuse, infecting us with many pestilent desires,”
And lastly and chiefly, they cry out with an open mouth, as if they had overshot Robin Hood, that Plato banished them out of his Commonwealth.”
So, these are the accusations; waste of time, mother of lies, nurse of abuse, and Plato has banished the poets from his republic.
Now, let us see he answers them one by one.
“First, to the first: that a man might better spend his time is a reason indeed; but it does, that no learning is so good as that which teacheth and moveth to virtue, and that none can both teach and move thereto so much as poesy,”
How can it be a waste of time if we say it is a best way of moving people to virtue?
If all kinds of learning are supposed to be teaching virtue, poetry does not only teach but it even moves people to virtue and it is better than other arts. So, how can we say it is a waste of time and there is another kind of art that we can waste our time in it better than poetry or spend our time in it?
“then is the conclusion manifest that ink and paper cannot be to a more profitable purpose employed.”
There is no other purpose better that writing poetry, that would make me waste my time and employ ink and paper. If you want to write a poem, you use ink and paper. So, it is not a waste of time.
“And certainly, though a man should grant their first assumption, it should follow, (me thinks), very unwillingly, that good is not good because better is better.”
If philosophy and history are good, poetry is better. And good is not good if better is better. If sometimes I have an hour and I am given the choice to read a work of philosophy, a work of history, or a work of poetry, according to Sidney, which one I chose? He says, philosophy and history are good but poetry is better. So, good is not good if there is something better.
“But I still and utterly deny that there is sprung out of earth a more fruitful knowledge.”
Nothing is more fruitful than poetry.
“To the second, therefore, that they should be the principal liars, I answer paradoxically, but truly, I think truly, that of all writers under the sun the poet is the least liar,”
Poetry is accused of being liar. He says how can the poet be a liar if he never says or never affirms that what he is saying is the truth?
In order to be lying, it means that you are not saying the truth. Now, the poet says, I am creating, I am using my imagination, and I am inventing. So, what is the truth here? Things as they really happen? He never says that. He never copies nature; he never copies things as they really happen. So, he never says that you have to believe what I say to be the true. So, how can he be lying?
“for the poet, he nothing affimeth, and therefore never lieth.”
He never affirms anything. He says I create.
“The poet never maketh any circles about your imagination,”
He never says that you have to imagine what I am saying to be true. Can you reach the meaning of the poem directly? Does the poet tell all people what he wants to say directly in a poem? Never. But he leaves every reader to use his imagination to reach whatever meaning he wants. So, he never affirms this is right and this is wrong. He never says this. So, how can he be lying?!
“The poet never maketh any circles about your imagination, to conjure you to believe for true what he writeth. He citeth not authorities of other histories, but even for his entry calleth the sweet Muses to inspire into him a good invention,”
Before writing, he asks the Muses to come and help him to invent. So, whatever he is writing, it is an invention of all his mind; it is not something that he obliges people to believe. So, how can be lying?! And he gives an example. He says, if people believe what he says to be true, whose fault is that?
Let me give you an example which he gives here. He says, if I have a child and I take him to the theater and the child watches the play performed and on the stage there is a door and on the door it is written Thebes, if you open that door, you will go to Thebes, if the child believes that if you go to the stage and open the door, he will find Thebes, whose problem is that? Whose fault is that? The play, the writer or the child? It is the child fault that he believed. Whereas another person who is sitting next to him, he know that this is not true. So, is it the writer who is lying or the person who is not understanding?
Thebes= ØíÈÉ
So, he says if it is written on the door and the person believes and here he says the child to show ignorance, innocence, you can easily be fooled. If grown-up believes, then he is stupid. It does not mean that the writer is lying by saying that this place is there; it is the child who is believing something that is not true. So, it is not the poet’s problem.
“What child is there that, coming to a play, and seeing Thebes written in great letters upon an old door, doth believe that it is Thebes? If then a man can arrive, at the child’s age, to know that the poet’s persons and doings are but pictures what should be,”
If a man would understand to be like this, then he is of the age of the child. If you believe that this is true, then you are mistaken; it is your own problem, not the poet’s problem because all poets use names and things as he says here, ‘not affirmatively, but allegorically and figuratively.’
The critics of his time, who accused poetry of being lying, say the proof of these lies is that they give the character’s names of true people, which is true. Now, let men give you an example, not from Sidney, but from your own studying. You have studied Shakespeare’s play; “Hamlet”. Where did Shakespeare get the name of Hamlet from? From real life; from history. There was a prince called Hamlet in Denmark. But is the story of Shakespeare the true story of Hamlet? No. he only borrowed certain elements, names, figures, situations, and events, but he turned them into a play and he added from his own imagination for the dramatic convenience, to make a play; to make a story. Now, if anybody after reading the story thinks that this story is the real story of prince Hamlet, whose problem would it be? Is it Shakespeare’s problem or the reader’s? It is the reader’s. We know before reading it that it is just a play or before going to see it on the stage, it is only a play. And if you think of it for a while, this particular play has been performed on the stage hundreds of times by hundreds of actors in hundreds of languages and each time with a different interpretation, why? If it was the real story, nobody could have changed it, but because it is not a real story, every reader can interpret it in different way. So, we can act it in a different way. So, how can Shakespeare be a liar? Can we call Shakespeare a liar? No. So, this is what Sidney is explaining to us; that in poetry we can change history, but in history we cannot change.
“But hereto is replied that the poets give names to men they write of, which argueth a conceit of an actual truth, and so, not being, proveth a falsehood.”
People say that writers give names to the characters; they are lying. They are not giving the truth and this is why the play is a falsehood; it is not true.
So, he answers this, three lines later.
“Their naming of men is but to make their picture the more lively,”
Any writer cannot bring characters on the stage, saying first character, second character, and third character. He has to give them names, so that they would be like reality, not exactly reality. And this is to make their plays more lively; like life.
“and not to build any history,”
The poet is not writing history.
“painting men, they cannot leave men nameless.”
By creating characters, he cannot keep them nameless; he has to give them name. So, this is done to make the characters more lively.
The third accusation:
“Their third is, how much it abuseth men’s wit, training it to wanton sinfulness and lustful love.”
Remember that all those accusations were said by Plato, but for different reasons. Plato here in this accusation said that poetry addresses the inferior part of the soul which is emotion and it weakens the soldiers in battles and people in real life. The people in Sidney’s time did not use this same argument; they use only the title, it is abusing people for different reasons according to the age. He said according to that age, the main topic of all the poems was love. But what kind of love was it? He said courtly love which was lustful love, not true love. People accused poetry of that time, of abusing people. When you are speaking about lust, vanity and about bad behavior, then you are abusing people, abusing honest people, abusing good people, so this is not a good kind of poetry. So, here Sidney is answering that saying that it is true that there are certain poems which include lust instead of love, but is this the fault of poetry or the fault of the writer? It is the fault of the poet; the person who is writing this poem. He says that there were many poems at that time written which were not good poems; they are only written to impress a lady. And even they went and bought them. They were not expressing their own emotions; they were taking expressions putting them in letters and sending them.
Poetry is abusing men’s wit by training their minds to think of the sinful and lustful love. And he says that most of the comedies, the lyrics and the elegies are full of those kinds of poems. But alas!
“Alas! Love, I would thou couldst as well defend thyself as thou canst offend others!”
He is wondering. He says íÇ ÎÓÇÑÉif love can defend itself as people are accusing it. Many people are accusing poor love and love cannot defend itself.
“I would those on whom thou dost attend could either put thee away, or yieldgood reason why they keep thee! But grant love of beauty to be a beastly fault,”
Now, love is something beautiful, this is the true love. And love here is not only love between man and woman. We have friendly love, we have parental love, and we have sisters-and-brothers love. So, love itself as a value and as a human passion is something good. People have to love each other. If they hate each other, ÇáÏäíÇ ÍÊæáÚ. So, it is the human passion that has to be found between people. but if people misuse it, then this is wrong. So, here he says, love here is something beautiful. The love of beauty has been changed and turned and accused of being beastly. What is the meaning of ‘beastly’? beastly= animalistic (like animals). People are behaving like animals, only thinking of lust, not love.
“(although it be very hard, since only man, and no beast, hath that gift to discern beauty);”
Beasts do not have the love. Love is a human quality. So, how can we describe a human quality as being beastly when beasts do not have this quality?
“I say that not only love, but lust, but vanity, but, scurrility, possesseth many leaves of the poets’ books;”
It is true that many of the poems that were written at that time; many of the pages of books of poetry at that time were full of lust and scurrility.
“yet think I, when this is granted, they will find their sentence may with good manners put the last words foremost, and not say that poetry abuses man’s wit, but man’s wet abuseth poetry.”
It is man’s way of thinking that is abusing poetry. Those who are using poetry for that reason are the people to be blamed. These are the people who are abusing poetry, not poetry is abusing people. And he gives an example for that (the sword). And you have many examples. You can take many examples from there. He says let us take the example of the sword. Sword is like the poetry. The power of the words is like a sword. If this sword is used to kill a person, is this a good or a bad means of using? And the person would be punished for it. And if the same sword is used to defend one’s country or one’s honor, then it is a good use. So, the sword in itself can be used positively or negatively. It depends on the person and how he is using it.
So, he gives the sword as an example to show how poetry can be misused. And he gives many examples of works of art that are good and others are bad where poetry was used in a correct way or in a bad way. Then, we come to the last accusation which is Plato’s accusation.
P35
“But now, indeed, my burden is great, that Plato’s name is laid upon, whom, I must confess, of all philosophers I have ever esteemed most worthy of reverence; and with great reason, since of all philosophers he is the most poetical.”
So, now he has to answer back Plato’s accusation which he considers to be the most serious and the most important because he likes Plato and he considers him the most poetical of all philosophers, because Plato was a poet and in teaching philosophy, he used poetry. So, he says why did Plato banish poetry? Plato gave us his reasons. Now, Sidney here is giving us different reasons for why Plato banished poetry. One time I got this in an exam; what are the reasons given by Plato and what are the reasons given by Sidney? And they are different; they are not the same.
ßÊíÑ. íÚäí ãÔ ÍäÐÇßÑ ßá æÇÍÏ áæÍÏå. ÍÊÑÈØí Èíäåã. Comparisons Ýí ÇáÇãÊÍÇä ÍÊáÇÞæÇ backgroundíáí ÚãáäÇåÇ ¡ ÍíÌí ÓÄÇá Ýí ÇáÇãÊÍÇä Úä Çá Backgrounds ßãÇä ÍÇÌÉ ÊÇäíÉ: ßá Çá
Now, how he did answer Plato’s accusations and how he explained the reasons for Plato’s banishment of poetry. He says,
“First, truly, a man might maliciously object that Plato, being a philosopher, was a natural enemy of poets.”
Now, the first reason is that Plato was a philosopher and philosophers were natural enemies to poets. So, as a philosopher he has to banish poetry. And he explains how he the philosophers came to hate poetry.
“For indeed, after the philosophers had picked out of the sweet mysteries of poetry the right discerning true points of knowledge, they forthwith, putting it in method, and making a school-art of that which the poets did only teach by a divine delightfulness, beginning to spurn at their guides, like ungrateful prentices were not content to set up shops for themselves, but sought by all means to credit their masters;”
All the philosophers, where did they first learn and where did they gain their knowledge? From poetry. Where did they take their methods from? From poetry. So, they learned from poetry and then, they constructed their school of philosophy based on poetry, and then, they used even the methods of poetry and after sometime, like bad students; bad prentices, discredited their masters. They turned against their masters and they were trying to prove that they are even better. So, they tried to discredit their teachers; they tried to say that we know better and this is why of course they show enmity to poetry.
“which by the force of delight being barred them, the less they could overthrow them the more they hated them.”
Were they really able to show that poetry is not as good as philosophy? They did not succeed. So, what did they do? They became the enemies of poetry. They hated poetry. Because they could not prove that they are better than poetry. Now, what is the proof of that? We have an example here is given to us by Sidney, saying that in the time of Plato people hated philosophy. So, philosophers hated poetry, and people hated philosophers and loved poetry. As an example for this we have Homer. Homer was a great poet. More than seven cities at that time were quarreling to whom Homer belong. Each city was trying to say Homer belongs to our city, why? They were trying to show that because he is so great, he belongs to our city. They were proud of that; they were honored to have Homer a citizen in them. But at the same time, they banished philosophers; they kicked them out of their cities.
“For, indeed, they found for Homer seven cities strove who should have him for their citizen; where many cities banished philosophers, as not fit members to live among them.”
This is the main reason Sidney gives for Plato’s banishment because he is a philosopher and he hated poetry. Why did he hate poetry? Because as philosopher, they started as poets but turned against poetry and hated it because people honored and loved poets and they quarreled over Homer. They hated philosophers and banished them from their cities.
The third reason for hating the poetry is that many poets were able to affect people more than philosophy. This is what Plato was afraid of. Do you remember that he said the most important reason for banishing poetry is the effect of poetry; the power of poetry over people. So, here Sidney is mentioning this. This is one point that is common in both. Now, here he says poetry has a very powerful effect. Some poets were able to affect tyrants and change them into being good kings and other philosophers try to do the same but they failed. Let us see hoe he says this.
“Certain poets as Simonides and Pindar had so prevailed with Hiero the First, that of a tyrant they made him a just king;”
These were poets and they were able to change and to convert Hiero the great (he was a king); to convert him into being a kind and good king instead of being a tyrant whereas at the same time Plato could not do anything; he could do so little with Dionysius. (Dionysius was a tyrant; he was another king). Plato with his philosophy tried to change him but he failed, not only he failed but Dionysius made him his slave and imprisoned him. So, of course this was another reason why philosophers hated poetry. And then the last poet comments and he says, ‘again, what is a man who might ask out of his commonwealth, the poet when he admitted the company of women.’ Women at Plato’s time were of inferior status; they were treated as slaves, they were bought and sold, like a father can sell his daughter in marriage; he will take money and give her to a person. Now, this person sometimes can give his wife to another person, to become a wife of another person. He will give her as a wife, not as a slave. So, women at that time were not free; they were of inferior status. So, he says what commonwealth, what government would be that of Plato which allows women who are of inferior status and would not allow poets! Of course this is not a good commonwealth.
“Again, a man might ask out of what commonwealth Plato did banish them. In sooth, thence where he himself alloweth community of women.”
Now, the last argument of Sidney about Plato: he says, ok, I love Plato and I love his works, so I would not say that Plato is against poetry, but he is only against the poets who misuse poetry and to prove that he says that Plato allowed divine poetry in his government. He was not against poetry, but he was against the misuse of poetry. And he says here that there people at Plato’s time who wrote poetry against the gods and goddesses. Remember Hercules and how people were fighting each other, taking sides of the gods and the gods fighting each other, and you are familiar with Ulysses, for example, and he was against the god of the water; the god of the sea, so the god of the sea made him lost in the sea for ten years as a punishment for that. So, people could be enemies with gods, and gods with gods, and gods with people. So, people who wrote poetry sometimes sided with one god against the other or wrote bad things about one god. This is what Plato was against, why? Because he was trying to establish a government; republic, which is ideal, and he wanted it to b a good commonwealth or a good government to teach the youth and to bring up good people. So, if the youth hear the bad words against the gods, so this is not a good kind of poetry. So, this is why he banished poetry. This is Sidney’s explanation.
P36
“So doth Plato upon the abuse, not upon poetry. Plato found fault that the poets of his time filled the world with wrong opinion of the gods, making light tales of that unspotted essence, and therefore would not have the youth depraved with such opinions. Herein may much be said; let this suffice: the poets did not induce such opinion, but did imitate those opinions already induced.”
Some poets wrote that things about gods and people started to imitate the same words and say them, so this was wrong. It was wrong to speak about the gods in a bad manner.
In conclusion of that, he says,
“Plato therefore, (whose authority I had much rather justly construe unjustly resist,) mean not in general of poets, in those words, but only meant to drive out those wrong opinions of the Deity,”
What Plato really meant was what was said wrongly about the god Deity; not about poetry. And to prove that, Sidney gives an example from Ion; from Plato’s dialogue, where he says that poetry is divine inspiration. So, if it is divine inspiration, how it can be bad!
“who, in his dialogue called Ion, giveth high and rightly divine commendation unto poetry. So as Plato, banishing the abuse (the result, the power, the effect), not the thing (not the poetry), not banishing it, but giving due honour unto it,” (which is calling a divine inspiration).
In Plato’s time, people misused poetry, so he was against it. In Sidney’s time, also people misused poetry and used it for lust instead of love, so he was against this. He says it poetry is not abusing people; it is the people who are abusing poetry.
Now, Plato concludes this saying that:
“For, indeed, I had much rather, show their mistaking of Plato, than go about to overthrow his authority;”
It is better to say that people understand Plato. This is because it is inspiring of divine force and Plato himself agreed with that. And he says that there were many philosophers at Plato’s timewho were not against poetry and he mentions Aristotle. Aristotle was not against poetry; he was against Plato’s opinion. So, he was a philosopher who advocated poetry. And then we have a whole conclusion concluding this part; the accusations, and how he answers this.
Then, we come to the third part; why he speaks about the English poets and why the English poetry has defects. At e beginning he was speaking about poetry in general and then he was speaking about the accusations about poetry in general also. Now, he speaks about English poetry.
‘But since I have run so long a career in this matter, ------”
Since I have been a poet for a long time, I have to think now before putting my pen of why England should be grown so hard a stepmother to poets; why England now has become like a stepmother. The stepmother is the father’s wife.
Now, what is the stereotypical concept of stepmother? At that time who was the very famous story? Cinderella. So, he is using this metaphor to describe England as becoming so harsh and hard on its own poets.
And he says that since antiquity, poetry was honored. Kings and emperors were themselves poets and Queen Elizabeth was herself a poet. And he gives examples from history of England, starting from Chaucer. He says he had great poets and poetry was honored. But why is it now that poetry attacked and accused? Now, he defends poetry and he says, maybe there are some bad poets. He tries to find the reason why there are defects in English poetry. This does not mean that all English poetry was wrong, but there are certain defects.
The first defect is that there are people who write poetry without having the talent; without having the gift. Remember that in the beginning he said it is a talent; it is a gift. And because at that time many people were writing poetry whether they were gifted or not, so we had bad poetry and we have good poetry. So, he says that the first reason that we have defect in poetry is that some people are not gifted.
P39
“But I, as I never desired the title, so have I neglected the means to come by it;”
I never thought why I am called a poet, but now I have to think why I have become a poet. What is the first thing you should have to become a poet? The talent; the gift.
“Marry, they that delight in poesy itself should seek to know what they do and how they do; and especially look themselves in an unflattering glass of reason, if they be inclinable unto it.”
Everyone who writes poetry should look himself into the mirror and judge himself, ‘are you a good poet or not?’ he should look into himself and see whether he deserves to be called a good poet or not, why? Because poetry must not be drawn by the ears. It is not only rhyme that makes poetry. He comes again to the same idea of verse and poetry; not all verse is poetry, not everybody who can write rhymes is a poet.
“For poesy must not be drawn by the ears, it must be gently led, or rather it must lead; which was partly the cause that made the ancient learned affirm it was a divine gift, and no human skill,”
It is not a skill; you do not learn how to write poetry. You do not learn writing poetry. How do you write poetry? First of all, you must have the talent, the divine gift; the gift given to you by God. You cannot go anywhere and try to look for that talent. And then what would they do? After discovering the talent, he says that there are three things and actually as a poet, he says:
“That Daedalus, they say, both in this and in other, hath three wings to bear itself up into the air of due commendation: that is, art, imitation, and exercise,”
Poetry has three wings to carry itself into the air. What are these three wings? If you want to become a poet, you must have three things or do three things.
Art which is the talent.
Imitation.
Exercise.
Imitation here is learning and imitating the masterpieces of others and then you can write poetry. So, you cannot write poetry without having the gift and without learning. You can have the gift, but if you do not have enough vocabulary, how can you write? So, you must learn how to write. Can you just think of two or three words rhyming and can you rhyme without knowing the rules of rhyming poetry?! (How it is written? How the line is divided? What are the kinds of feet you can follow? What are the kinds of syllables you can use? How many are stressed and how many are unstressed? How many are lines in a stanza? How many stanzas can you have?) You can improvise and you can change, but then you must originally have the basics. So, without knowing and without knowledge, you cannot write poetry. So, it is a gift first and then knowledge and imitation, by knowledge you know and then you try to follow. This is one of the very famous theories of art concerning or of poetry given to us by Sidney. Poetry is art, imitation and exercise.
And he gives examples from English writers, like Chaucer’s ‘Troilus and Criseyde’, Surrey’s ‘Lyrics’, Spenser’s ‘Shepheardes Calender’. He takes examples from Greek writers, Latin and Italian to show that those people were really gifted and talented and they read and then they move to write poetry.
So, the first thing we must know in writing poetry is to have the gift. Unfortunately, some writers are not gifted. So, their poetry is not good. This is the first defect. The second defect is that at his time people abused poetry (at that time it was dramatic poetry) of not following Aristotle’s unities. What are the unities given by Aristotle? Place, time, and action. At his time, people were accusing poetry of not following the unities the place and time. And this is very clear even in Shakespeare’s’. He followed only the unity of action, but never of place and time. So, this was a defect seen by people. Now, he answers this defect. He says,
P40
“Our tragedies and comedies not without cause cried out against, observing rules neither of honest civility nor of skilful poetry: excepting Gorboduc, which notwithstanding as it is full of stately speeches and well-sounding phrases,”
Many of these comedies and tragedies are full of faults with exception of ‘Gorboduc’. ‘Gorboduc’ is written at his time. These plays are faulty because they do not have morals; they do not teach morals and they do not have skillful poetry. Most of them are not talented with the exception of Gorboduc.
Now, what is the defect? He says,
“For it is faulty both in place and time.”
He says that even ‘Gorboduc’, although it is full of morals, according to the critics of his time, it is still faulty, why? Because it does not follow the unities of place and time.
And he mentions Aristotle’s percept of common reason where he said that the poem should have those unities.
Now, those who are not following those unities, can we consider them bad poets according to Sidney? He says I test the poem or the play; if it is morally bad or and it does not teach and it does not delight, then it is bad. But if does not follow the unities of place and time, still it can be a good poem. Why? Because after explaining all this, at the end of the paragraph he says,
p41
“But they will say, How then shall we set forth a story which containeth both many places and many time?”
Now, how can the writer write a story which includes many places and many times?
“And do they not know that a tragedy is tied to the laws of poesy, and not of history;”
Now, these writers; these dramatists, who write their plays without using the unities of time and place say that we are writing drama, we are not writing history, we are following the rules of writing dramatic poetry, not the rules of writing history.
The rules of writing history you have to stick to facts.
But the rules of writing drama,
“They are not bound to follow the story, but having liberty either to feign a quite new matter, or frame the history to the most tragical conveniency?”
This is the rule of tragedy; the rule of drama. You can frame, you can make up, and you can invent. But you have to stick to the rule of tragical convenience and this is why I told you about Shakespeare. He wrote plays taking incidents from history and changing them. How did he change them? According to the conveniency of the drama, but not according to the place or time. This brings us to a third point and that is those people who accuse drama of not following place and time may do not know the difference between presenting and narrating. They want only what can be presented to be there on the stage. So, they limit the play to a certain time and certain place. But he says that there are other things that can be mentioned in the play, but not presented on the stage; they can be narrated, like battles and themes of killing, like things that happened long time ago. These can be done through narration. This means that you are referring to things that happened a long time ago or the play starts and then the second scene starts after three month and then we know what happened during those three months through narration. So, this is not wrong. The people who find poetry bad are the people who cannot differentiate between narration and representation.
“Again, many things may be told which cannot be showed, if they know the difference betwixt reporting and representing.”
P41
We can extend the play for a long time and in different places if we know how to differentiate between what can be presented on stage and what can be narrated in words. A good dramatist should know the difference and should be able to perform it and in this case his play will not be defected.
So, we said the first defect is that people do not have the talent. And the second one is that they do not follow the unities. Now, the third one is that some people are confused between laughing and delighting. Some people think that in order to delight, you have to make people laugh. And this is completely wrong. This brings us to the mixture between comedy and tragedy or the defect (some people find it as a defect); that there was at that time what was called tragic-comedy. Notice that one mistake in spelling can change the meaning. The word ‘tragi-comedy’ is a mixture of comedy and tragedy; have and half between tragedy and comedy. But if you say ‘tragic comedy’, it is a tragic with a comic end. If you say comic tragedy, it is a tragedy with death at the end but with hilarious and laughing events that lead to this end. So, every expression has a meaning. If you use tragic comedy instead of tragicomedy, it gives completely different meaning. So, be careful when you use the words.
P42
“But, besides these gross absurdities, how all their plays be neither right tragedies nor right tragedies nor right comedies, mingling kings and clowns, not because the matter so carrieth it, but thrust in the clown by head and shoulders to play a part in majestical matters, with neither decency nor discretion; so as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sportfulness, is by their mongrel tragic-comedy obtained.”
At that time, they had plays with tragedy and comedy together. They are neither tragedies nor comedies; they are in between. They have both elements. They mingle and mix both elements together. Now, he explains this and says, it is not a matter of laughing that would make us be delighted. Tragedy can be delighted without having laughter in it. So, what is the difference between delight and laughter? And this is what he explains here. He says some people use comedy in tragedy to make people delighted, thinking this is how to delight. Or in comedy they make people laugh hilariously to be delighted, thinking that this is how people are delighted. He says there is a big difference between laughter and delighted. And he even defines what delight is and what laughter is. He says,
“where the whole tract of a comedy should be full of delight, as the tragedy should be still maintained in a well-raised admiration.”
Some think that a comedy should be full of laughter and tragedy should be only to be admired; full of admiration.
“But our comedians think that there is no delight without laughter, which is very wrong; for though laughter may come with delight, yet cometh it not of delight.”
You can have laughter and delight together, but not necessarily. Laughter is not necessarily the result of delight; you can be delighted without laughter.
“as though delight should be the cause of laughter;”
Of course this is wrong.
“For delight we scarcely do, but in things that have a conveniency to ourselves, or to the general nature;”
When do we have delight? When we have something mutual between what we have in human nature and what we are seeing; when we can communicate, when we can relate to what is said to us. Because we are human beings and what is said in front of us affects us as human beings. So, there is a relation. So, this makes us delighted. We admire what we see, so we are delighted. But laughter is the opposite. You laugh at things that you do not connect with, like a person who walks in a funny way. And if you see people having good chance and then you admire, but if you see mischance (people who are all the time finding obstacles and having bad luck), you laugh at that. The effect of delight is permanent, but the effect of laughter is like tickling the child. When you tickle a child, once you stop tickling, he will stop laughing. So, this is laughter. The effect only when it is done.
“laughter almost ever cometh of things most disproportioned to ourselves and nature. Delight hath a joy in it either permanent or present; laughter hath only a scornful tickling. For example we are ravished with delight to see a fair woman,”
He is a man and when he sees a fair woman, he is delighted, but would he laugh? No. it does not arouse laughter.
“and yet are far from being moved to laughter. We laugh at deformed creatures, wherein certainly we cannot delight. We delight in good chances, we laugh at mischances. We delight to hear the happiness of our friends and country, at which he were worth to be laughed at that would laugh.”
You are delighted to know about the happiness of others, but you do not laugh at them. And he quotes Aristotle here who says that it is sinful to stir laughter on things that do not deserve laugher. You have to have a reason for laughing.
Now, this is the fourth defect. He speaks about the kind of poetry that was famous at that time which is songs and sonnets. He says: P44
“Other sorts of poetry almost have we none, but that lyrical kind of songs and sonnets,”
We do not have other poems other than songs and sonnets, very few are written in other form, but the most famous form was songs and sonnets. Of course these songs and sonnets are all about courtly love. So, it was presented in a good manner, then it is a good poem, but if love is presented in a bad way, then it is a bad poem. So, most of songs and sonnets at that time would spoke about courtly love. So, he defends it that in some of them when they spoke about love in a bad manner and it turned to be lust and not love.
“But truly, many of such writing as come under the banner of unresistible love, if I were a mistress would never persuade me they were in love;”
He is making fun of those poems. He says if I was a lady and somebody tell me such a bad poem full of this kind of love, I will not believe because this is a vicious love; it is not true love.
“so cold they apply fiery speeches, as men that had rather read lovers’ writing, (and caught up certain swelling phrases,”
So, these works were not written by true poets or people who had true feelings, these people who are only quoting. Do you know what to quote means? To take the same expressions from other writers, just simply add them and put them together to make a poem. And this of course is not correct. Also the diction; the language, of those poems is full of flowery diction and full of far-fetched words, full of extreme expressions of love. And they are, as he says, winter-starved flowers. Flowers that grow in winter, they are starved, they are not bright flowers. They use many figure of speech, they use flowery language, so the diction is not poetry. Also the metaphors and the conceits, the similitude they used are also very fragile. They keep using them and repeating them. They do not use fresh conceits. They use very worn-out conceits which are not good.
Now, if I have a good poet, what is the use of the conceit and the metaphors? Why does a poet use the metaphor which is the main element of poetry? Because he wants to say his meaning indirectly. This is why I keep telling you if you say it is a simple poem, it is wrong. No poet writes a poem without figure of speech. The main using for figure of speech is to hide the meaning; to hide behind a figure of speech. So, if I just say whatever I want using different expressions, this is not a good poetry. This is not an art. The art; the gift, is to know how to say it in a hidden way. And this is what he says here, I have found in divers; in poets, small poets, I found in their poems better poems than poems written by professors. Why? Because the professors are not gifted; they do not have the talent. Some professors have the talent and many others do not.
And he makes the difference between writing poetry and oratory. They all use language, but in oratory you have to be very clear.
Oratory= ÇáÎØÇÈÉ
When you want to give a speech, you have to be very clear; you do not use figure of speech. Poetry makes use of words and you want to convince but indirectly. So, they use the same words but one is in direct manner and the other is in indirect manner. And the last thing he says that many people like to use foreign language thinking that the foreign language is better than the English one. He says the English language is a good kind of language and the rhyme is applicable to the English language, so why do we go to other languages?! He says the language is a good tongue, it has beauty of its tongue and the grammar here is worth using, so why do we go and use other languages? Then, we have the conclusion of the whole essay.
This is Sidney and next time the presentation will be about Dryden and then we will discuss Dryden essay.
|