Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST

Philip Sidney
Gossoon attributed " The School of Abuse " to Sidney. Sidney did not give any important to Gossoon but
was provoked by his work to think about poetry. Art in general and poetry in particular. English people had
a very little and vague idea about the nature and function of poetry. So, Sidney thought it necessary to
educate and enlighten the English people (his country man) rather than a reply to Gossoon’s work. Toward
the end he takes up his charges and attacks and defends poetry.

Though named apology it's not apology in the sense we take it. Instead, it’s on exposition of the nature of
function and place of poetry in the life of individual, nature and history. Secondly, it’s not only defence of
poetry but of all creative works. In the words of Aristotle for all imitative arts and not for poetry alone.

Sainsbury a historian of criticism, says that this book is not a defence of poetry but of romance and prose
fiction. Sidney was a follower of Plato and an idealist.

Sidney, in order to impress upon his countrymen the important of poetry, begins by talking about its
antiquity and its historical role.

Sidney says when mankind was emerging from barbarism, poetry was the 1st height. It was the first to
awoken the sense of beauty, the first to arouse the desire about the knowledge of man and nature.

Sidney uses another image, poetry is like a mother who feeds her young ones on her milk, enables them to
grow till they are able to digest harder food. Mankind or civilization was in a state of infancy when coming
out of barbarism and it was poetry like the mother which kept the new emerging mind alive and healthy till
the man was able to understand of appropriate difficult subjects. Poetry was like a soft food given to an
infant. It was poetry which kept alive of developed the mind of man of brought about the spiritual
awakening in man. Yet people condemn it and call it the mother of lies. They are ungrateful to poetry and
like hedgehog in Aesop's fable serpents.

In every country of the world, the poets were the 1st to appear. Greece was the most civilised country.
These who appeared 1st were Musaeus and Homer (Both poets). They prepared the ground for other
subjects to appear. If we go back from history to legend. There was an earlier poet among Greeks even
before Homer Orpheus who used to sing his poetry in accompaniment of the harp. His poetry was so
enchanting that the animals and stones would gather round him, all spell bound. The tiger would sit by the
side of the dear. Such was the influence of his poetry. This is actually a legendary story. Poetry has its own
truth different from historical.

The truth conveyed by this simple story of Orpheus is that there are people like tiger (ferocious) and like
deer (timed) but poetry has the power to tame both the lion and deer. Similarly, poetry also tamed man to
give up his ferocity.

Homer was historically true; Orpheus was a legendary poet. But the story of Orpheus tells the importance
about the function of poetry. It has the power to tame the ferocious and to put courage into the hero of
the timid ones. So, the 1st thing to tame the savage nature of human beings was poetry.

When come to Rome same thing is there as well. Livius Andronicus, Ancient were poets (opposed the first).
Andronicus translated Homer's Iliad and Odyssey while Aenius wrote the 1st legendary history of Homer in
poetical form which is consider the 1st epic in Latin. The Europe passed into 1000 darkness. When the
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
mankind was emerging from this darkness, again the 1st two Europeans to come out of it were poets
Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, (his stories as .......Arabian Nights)

When the rays of Renaissance (light) began reaching the Isles of Britain, we find poets like Chaucer Gower,
Philip Sidney thought Chaucer was the 1st English poets. Sidney was unaware of Anglo-Saxon literature
(Beowulf). According to Sidney, the 1st poet to bring light into England was Chaucer, the Gower.

According to Sidney, Turkey was still semi - barbaric, the only civilizing force in Turkey were the poets. They
had no philosophy. It was Turkey of the 16th century.

So, poetry is the 1st which feeds the people and keeps them alive. Poets were held in great esteem in the
ancient world.

So that the first philosopher appeared, they did so in the garb of poets. Their body (matter) was
philosophy, their dress (manner) was poetry.

Thales was the 1st man to raise question of philosophy - what is the principal of unity behind the diversity
of the universe? He wrote his philosophy in verse form the 1st Greek philosopher. He had versified
philosophy. Parmenides, an idealistic philosopher who said ultimate reality was spiritual. Another school of
philosophy said change is ultimate reality, permanence is unreal change is reality.

Philip Sidney gives all example to show /prove the esteem in which poetry in which poetry was held.

Pythagoras (the earliest moral philosophy, musician Mathematician and Mystic, was an interesting man).
His general philosopher is very similar to Hindus. Immortal of soul trans (cyclic Theory of time, the world
moves in a cycle, Hindu) Man moves in a cycle (born, die, reborn) like Hindu the goal of life to gain
liberation from the cycle and becomes one with God. It one become absolutely good, pure, sincere,
thinking only of divine things, he will gain liberation or s. This is his morality. As a moral philosophy the
preached very s but noble morals. He also opposed in the grabs of poet.

The same is true of Pleiades didactic philosophy solon the 1st political philosophy (2700 years ago) other
there should be two houses (the upper house Senate should have equal number of members from four
tribes), the lower house represent of Athenians, would have the representative of Athenians on
democratic basis. He expounded this constitution in verse form. Solon was a genuine poet and
philosopher.

Plato himself was a poet and wrote great work of philosophy. Philip Sidney called Plato a poet because
Philip Sidney sometimes becomes very different especially moral philosophy. In the times of Greeks,
philosophy wasn't meant for scholars only. Philosophy was much more interesting and easier in the times.
Plato was the easiest of them all because he presents them in the form of dialogues (brings 4/5 people
together Socrates always in them, select a topic have discussion on it, everyone expresses his / her view).
Why is it poetry? It's poetry because such a gathering never took place as the people are all real people.
The words put in their mouths are Plato's words but they are expressing their philosophy ( dialected
method ).

So, from this clash of different opinions, we arrive at truth. This is imaginary and not historical. This is
imaginatively conceived, so it’s poetry, all critics have called Plato a poet. The substance of these dialogues
is philosophy but the manner and form are poetry. Philip Sidney says way to talk of Parmenides or
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
Pythagoras, why not talk about Plato, the greatest philosopher. So, Philip Sidney point out that among all
the nations and countries poetry was held in high esteem.

The same is true of historians. The first and greatest of historian was Herodotus, the father of history. The
Greek talk about serious subjects in a very pleasant manner. Herodotus wrote history in poetic not in verse
form. Though he did not write history in verse form nevertheless it is poetry because any important
political event or work is presented by him like an epic. This he does especially in wars, there are different
heroes and episodes which are real but they are represented like the characters of Homer’s epic,
everything is woven into a single whole.(1) It makes a great tragic drama out of the historical events.(2)
The dialogues put into the mouths of the character are fictitious. Herodotus make his own speeches
suitable to the occasion and the characters of the person, put them in the mouth of those characters.
That’s why Philip Sidney calls Herodotus a poet. He was actually a historian and wrote what happened but
his presentation is imaginative. History is presented as a work of art by Herodotus.

Philip Sidney tries to impress upon his reader the importance of poetry, the very crucial role it’s played in
the history of mankind. It brought refinement into the life of many prepared him for the more difficult
subject like philosophy, history, ethics, politics. The first philosopher and historian appeared in the
garb(dress) of poets.

Not satisfied with what he said about poetry so far, he tells us about the great prestige of poetry among
Greek and Romans. The Roman word for poets is “Vates” means a prophet, a seer blest, a man inspired by
God. It shows the ancient Roman thought of poets and poetry. The poets were inspired by God to write his
poetry. The Romans used to hold his book in their hands, closed their eyes, opened the book at random,
put their finger on the words and thought that God had directed these lines for them. They thought that,
this had some information about their future. This shows their reverence for the poet and poetry among
the Romans. So the poet was a man inspired by God. The puritans, men like Gossoon, considered it a
blasphemy and they got after the life of that person who thought of poet like this. The puritans considered
poets to be liar. Philip Sidney says that there is great work of poetry in Bible itself and they are words of
God. David was a prophet and a poet as well, the greatest king of the Israelites. His beautiful poems are in
the Bible, “The Psalms of David”. So how can poetry be bad. The same is Solomon he wrote a beautiful
“Song of Songs” which is a collection of love poems and this too is in the Bible. Solomon had a number of
wives but when he fell in love with Shumamite, a maid, he composed beautiful love poems. They are
“duets” lover and beloved singing together. We find a mystic feeling of ecstasy in these poems. Solomon
and his beloved expressed their feelings in beautiful poetry and this is in the Bible. So, poetry can’t be bad
or a mean of corrupting people.

The Greek word for poet is “Poet”. The English word has been taken from Greek means, a creator or a
maker. So, for Greeks a poet was a creator. They gave this high status to the poets and what he/she wrote.
There were many branches of learning among Greeks, Psychology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Biology, Astronomy
etc but none of them is given the status of creator. None of them is a creator, they are all copyists dealing
with facts which they observe. So, they are recorders of observable facts. The astronomers, using different
instrument observes planets, stars, galaxy, tries to find out if there is any probability or possibility of life on
other planet so he is just observing not creating anything. The same is true of botanists, put seed in
particular kind of soil, sees it sprout and grow, the different stages of its growth, flowers and fruits that it
produces, which soil is good for these seeds or plants etc. So, he is also an observer or recorder or copyist.
Similarly, a historian writes about facts of history, doesn’t create anything new.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
But a poet creates what ought to be or what might be. So, a poet is a creator as he creates a new world
and new things which do not exist in nature for example chimeras, demi-gods, nymphs. He creates all
these out of his imaginations, presents the ideal form of things produced by nature and idealizes them
using his/her imaginative faculty.

Philip Sidney says where in this world (created by GOD) would you find such a green valleys, fragrant
flowers or fruits, streams of clear and clean water than we find in poetry. He says that the world created by
GOD is brazen whereas that of poet is golden. As gold is better than brass, so the world of poet is more
delightful than the world of GOD. This is true not only of scenery or physical objects but also of human
created in poetry. Aethiopica’s Theogenus is a lover and in GOD’s world we cannot find such a perfect
lover like him. Where in this world would you find a great warrior like Ariasto in Tasso’s Ariosto’s Furioso.
He is a greater warrior than all the warriors of the world. Similarly, where can we find in this world a
perfect ruler like Cyrus of this Xenophon’s Cyropaedea. The Cyrus of this poem is a perfect king concerned
only about the wellbeing of his kingdom and his subjects. So, this ruler found in poetry is greater than any
ruler of this real world. Virgil’s Aeneid has a perfect hero like “Aeneas”. according to Sidney, he is perfect
man in every way. That’s why he says that the world of GOD is brazen and the world of poetry is golden.

One can question that the things created by GOD are concrete mean they have material and physical
reality and the things[world] of poetry is all imaginary and imaginative, so how can we compose these two
types of things or world? Philip Sidney answer to this twofold. Firstly, the creative process begins with an
idea whether it is the creative process of God or man. Secondly it is to that very idea that they give a form
or shape. God gives the form to that idea in matter and a poet in imagination. First is the idea and then is
the translation of that idea into shapes and form. The poet’s material is different. to the idea in his mind, a
poet gives verbal shape, create images of human beings (heroes, their heroic deeds) and natural objects,
scenes, concepts etc. His matter is words, harmony and melody. Conceiving of idea is more important than
giving it a shape, his conception of idea is more important stage in the process of creation.

If one still insists that physical world is real and the imaginative world of poet is not real, Philip Sidney says
that this depend upon one’s concept of reality i.e. what one considers reality? Poetry has its own truth
known is “Poetic Truth”. both the kings and lovers and characters of poetry and this world are real but they
are different levels of reality. Those created by God is brazen and by poet is golden. Philip Sidney says that
he is not insulting God because after all who has created the poet. So, the credit for what the poet creates,
actually goes to God. So, the Greek considered a poet to a creator. Philip Sidney combines the idea of the
Greek and the Romans into his theory of poetry and says:

Poetry is a work of creation

Poetry is a work of inspiration

Philip Sidney define poetry as imitation pointing out that Aristotle had called it “Memises”. According to
Philip Sidney imitation, counterfeiting, figuring all means imitation and not copying. Today by
counterfeiting we mean “false” but in the Elizabethan age counterfeiting does not have a bad sense. It
meant only a thing which appears like another thing but has a different significance.

The characters of poetry appear like men of this world but they are far more superior than an ideal form.
That is what he means by counterfeit. The characters of poetry are much closer to ideal compared to the
men of the real world. A painter draws picture with paint, colour, brush etc. The poet also draws pictures
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
with the help of words called images. This imagery is the soul of poetry. The images appear like the things
of this world but are more beautiful, perfect and ideal than the real world.

So, a poet creates a talking picture (a painter creates static pictures only focusing on a particular emotion
of a character or scene on a particular occasion). So, a poet is a creator, he represents not what is or has
been or shall be but what should be. Here Philip Sidney is slightly different from Aristotle by using the word
“should” having moral connotation. Aristotle did not mean that the thing of art has a natural purpose.
Philip Sidney uses the word “should” and says that a poet is a creator. He says that a poet creates through
his inspiration. The idea or words are divinely inspired. Not only the conception or idea but also diction,
not only the matter but also the manner is divinely inspired. So, this is Plato is understood by Philip Sidney.

There is different interpretation of Plato. Philip Sidney says that Plato believed in inspiration. So, poetry is a
representation, is counterfeit, is talking picture, though it represents the things of this world in their ideal
forms. So, a poet is a creator and a man inspired by GOD, with this aim to instruct and delight. This formula
was first given by Horace and was followed by generation after generation. But in Philip Sidney the
emphasis is on instruction (Horace delightful instruction). However, if the instruction is without delight, it
would have lost its significance. So delightful instruction is necessary. The aim is to instruct but the
instruction must be made delightful. This was the view of Horace as well as Philip Sidney say that with this
purpose in mind, the poet imitates and is inspired in his imitation. So, Philip Sidney has combined elements
from three sources Plato, Aristotle, Horace for his theory and function, and Nature of poetry.

How does P.s theory of poetry differ from A’s theory of poetry?
1stly it is different from A’s theory because of the usage of the word “should be” instead of “might be” or
“ought to be”. “should be” has a moral connotation to it. This means if a poet has to represent what
“should be” the hero/heroin must be morally perfect man/woman. The poet must show the triumph of
good over evil. There must be poetic justice (rewarding good in proportion to their goodness, punishing
evil in proportion to their wickedness). This concept isn’t there in A’s or Greek’s poetry/ dramas. According
to P.S the hero/heroin in poetry/plays must be a morally perfect person. There should be poetic justice.
These are the very important differences between the theories of A’s and P.S.

The 2nd difference is that Aristotle believed that ideas come through reason and reflection. The ideas or
ideals expressed by a poet are the result of his reasoning capacity and reflection power. But P.S believed
they come through inspiration.

3rd difference is of the aim or function of poetry. According to A it is pleasure. According to A poetry/art
isn’t subordinated to morality, religion, ethics or politics. They’ve their own distinctive nature. So, the aim
of all imitative art is to give pleasure but P.S adopts Horace’s formula and not A’s idea.

In this sense, these 3 branches: Religious poetry- to celebrate the greatness of God, Philosophical poetry-
to explain some metaphysical doctrine, moral view or political theory, Poetry proper- this means that the
first two types are absent in proper poetry. Of the first he gives example of bible. It is a book of hundreds
of men, very different from the Holy Quran. The bible covers a period of about 2000 years. It is four binds
of writings. The first one is Tora (taorat)- the five books attributes to Moses. The 2nd or the books of the
history of the Israelites from the time of creation to the time when they came back from exile. The 3 rd is
the book of prophecy. The 4th is poetry. We find beautiful poems. The poetry of David, Solomon, the book
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
of jore (?) and several others. So the Bible is sort of a library written over a period of 2000 years by
hundreds of men.

P.S talks about the 4th category while talking about the religious poetry. Religious = philosophical poetry
means non-poetic subject matter in poetic form.

Sidney’s theory of poetry is eclectic i.e. made of elements taken from three major sources. From Aristotle
he takes the theory of imitation. From Plato he takes that poetry is the result of divine inspiration as
understood by him. From Horace he takes that the end and function of poetry is to instruct + delight. P.S
divides poetry into three major classes (as mentioned earlier). Sidney refers particularly to the psalms of
David and the song of songs of Solomon while he is taking about religious poetry.

Why has the love poetry been included in the Bible? Why Waris Shah, a sufi religious man wrote Heer
Ranjha. Why Shah Abdul Latif wrote a poem on the love of sussi + Punno. Why did a saint write this? Jai
Dev of India wrote Geet Govinda on the love of Krishna + Radha. He was a mystic! Geet Govinda
commemorates the love of Krishna and Radha. But for some time, Krishna forgets Radha and flirts, sports
with other “Gopis” which makes Radha very sad. When Krishna hears this, he returns to Radha. (This is just
the first(?) of it. Why did Jai Dev write this? This poem is Metaphysical. Krishna stands for human soul and
Radha for the divine soul, i.e. God. There is love between the two but when the human soul comes in the
body, it becomes enchanted by the things of this world and forgets God. This makes God unhappy and
when the human soul realizes this, it longs to seek unite with God. This is the theme of all love poetry of
mystic poets. The human soul is separated from God when it comes in the body of man says W.W.
Ultimately the human soul and God become on in a mystic union as Krishna and Radha are locked in a
loving embrace in Jai Dev’s Geet Govinda. That’s why Solomon also wrote the song of songs, i.e. to
symbolize the love of man for God. There’s something in man which makes him restless and yearn for God
and he goes out to seek him, finds him and the human soul is united with God in mystic ecstasy. This is the
theme of all mystic poetry. So this is the answer to question as to why love poetry is included in the Bible.
Sidney in his defense of poetry refers to these beautiful poems as examples of religious poetry.

The 2nd class is philosophical poetry which includes poems on natural poetry. Like Lucretius’s poem on the
nature of things. Virgil also wrote _________________ dealing with natural philosophy in verse form. And
then there was cato ____________ who wrote moral philosophy in verse form. Then there was Lucan who
wrote on the famous war between Julius Caesar and Pompey in his book ______________ but Sidney says
that this is not genuine poetry because it deals with facts and events and not with ideas and ideals. It deals
with what is and has been and not with what should be. So, the book of the aforementioned philosophers
isn’t genuine poetry. It’s philosophy only in the dress of poetry.

Genuine poetry deals with what should be, it gives beautiful images of vice/virtue, joy/sorrow. The
difference between genuine poetry and other kind of poetry is explained by P.S with an example of a
portrait of a woman. Lucres (Lucretia) lived about 100 years before Sidney. She was a Roman, married
women who loved her husband very much. A woman who prized her virtue and was beautiful. Her beauty
attracted one of the most powerful man of her time: _______________. This man tries to seduce her but
she remained devoted to her husband. One day when her husband was away, he raped her. On the return
of her husband she told him and committed suicide by stabbing herself. She lived 100 years before Sidney.
Nobody had seen her but yet they painted her. So, they were painting a woman whom they had not seen.
They were painting totally from imagination. Actually, they were giving a reasonable form to certain
mental and moral qualities – to the quality of beauty, honor, sacrifice and sorrow.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
In the painting they were trying to bring out these qualities, showing them in her face and attitude. So thr
painting were not of the women as she really were. So, this is a real work of art i.e imitation of what should
be. And the 1st portrait painting of a woman sitting before the painter is painting of what is. And the poetry
of a philosopher’s concern what is (so they are not genuine poets as what they are written aren't subjects).

Another example is the statue of Buddha, his first statue was made 400 years after his death in Gandhara.
So, these great sculptures made statue of a man whom they had not seen as he'd died 400 years ago. What
was essential about Buddha was that he found Nirvana- found answer to his questions. He was the
embodiment of love i-e he had infinite love for all living creatures. His religion was non- violence i-e not
hurting the feelings of any man, not taking the life of any living creatures, not harming any creature. This
the highest religion (love is the highest religion). So, the statue they made didn't make like Buddha but
showed a man who uses enlightened, had infinite compassion for all whether he was sitting in meditation
or teaching (as shown by the posture of the statue). This i.e. Gandhara Sculpture is the real art, one of the
greatest arts. This is imitation of what 'might be' (according to Aristotle) and imitation of what should be
(according to Phillip Sidney).

Types of poetry:
Genuine poetry is a product of imagination, is several types:

1. Tragic poetry: deals with serious aspects of life in dramatic form. According to Phillip Sidney tragedy
deals with the Fall of a great man from a place of honor to a great shame.

2. Comic poetry: deals with non-serious aspects of life and common people deal with the absurd and
ridiculous and not with tragic flow.

3. Heroic poetry: what aristotole called the epic the subject of heroic poetry is similar to tragedy. It deals
with heroes and their heroic actions deal with them in a mixture of narrator and dramatic manner. It has a
greater number and variety of characters, much more incident and episodes, covers a longer period of
time and much longer place then tragedy. So, its scope is greater than tragedy.

4.Lyric poetry: much smaller than heroic poetry. Its special quality is it's musicality. It comes very close to
song. In lyric, the poet gives expression to his personal feelings and experiences in a musical language.

5. Personal poetry: deals with countryside; idealized the life of Shepherds/shepherdess talk alot about
their joys and sorrows, struggles, triumph and failures. It's also very musical.

6. Elegiac poetry: as understood by Greeks, Roman, and also by Phillip Sidney. It doesn't necessarily mean
a poem written to mourn the death of someone. No doubt, there are some elegies related to death, but
there's some dealing with the suffering of people and it's written sympathetically and in a very mournful
tone.

7. Satiric poetry: deals with the affection, absurdities, vanities and hypocrisies of man generally in a higher
life. It doesn't condemn or show anger but mocks and makes fun. It shows that the man who's their failings
make himself ridiculous. Satire is a more sophisticated kind of poetry than many others because it doesn't
condemn/denounce. It is a poetry of wit which can only be written by a man with intelligence and a fine
sense of humor who can make these failing ludicrous.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
8. Iambic Poetry: is about tyrants and tyranny. It denounces and condemns the tyrants. It doesn’t have the
finer quality of satire but then its dealing with and not follies. Tyranny isn’t a minor folly i.e. we can’t laugh
at it.

So, these are the eight different classes of genuine poetry that Philip Sidney talks about. He says that this is
the traditional division of poetry but he finds it illogical. Because while some poetry is given its name
because of the subject matter for example heroic poetry deals with heroes etc, other is given its name
because of its meter in which they are written such as Iambic poetry. So this division is illogical.

Talking about meters Philip Sidney says that many poets wrote in metrical form but he says meter isn’t
essential for poetry. Verse and meter are only the dress of poetry and he says dress doesn’t make the man.
There are many writings in verse that are not genuine poetry, like Cato’s _______________ moral verses or
Lucetriuses book on the nature of things. On the othe hand there are many genuine poets who didn’t write
in verse form like Xenophone’s cyropaedia ______________________________ which presents how a king
should be. This cyopaedia though written in prose form is genuine poetry. Similarly, Aethiopica, dealing
with the love story of two lovers, is genuine poetry, though in prose. So, we can have genuine poetry in
verse form and we can have unpoetic writings in verse. Verse, meter and rhyme, are just a dress but P.S
____________ that it’s the most appropriate dress e.g. if a lawyer goes to court in dress of a soldier, he’ll
still be a lawyer and perform his function but his dress won’t be suitable. Similarly, will be the case of
poetry. If a priest wears a clown’s dress. So, meter and verse are only a dress but they are the proper dress
which is most suitable.

Sydney's Moral Defense (moral function) of poetry:

According to Phillip Sidney the function of poetry is to instruct and to delight. The emphasis is on
instruction, precedence is given to instruction. His formula is delightful instruction. He did emphasize
because in his age poetry use being attacked from the moral angle. Stephon Gossoon called it "mother of
lies". Do Phillip Sidney comes forward with a moral defense of poetry pointing out that poetry strengthens
a man morally. It guides a man in his moral life. It’s a practical force and has a practical influence by making
man morally better. In achieving its aim poetry goes for ahead than others sciences. According to Phillip
Sidney, poetry isn't an immoral force, rather it's the strongest moral force. He gives us a comparative study
of different subjects from the point of view of their moral role.

He begins by saying that all pursuits of learning liberate man from the dungeon(prison) of the body and
enables him to contemplate his own divine nature. This image he uses is Platonic- regarding the body as
prison in which the soul is imprisoned. In this way the soul becomes weak in the body. Phillip Sidney says
that human nature is divine (again platonic). The soul in its essence has the same nature as God. But when
locked up in the body, it becomes moral and the pursuit of knowledge as opposed to indulgence in bodily
pleasure, liberates to soul. The study of all subjects has a moral influence. But this influence is greater in
case of subjects which Aristotle called humanities. So, its termed Aristotle humanities are those subjects
which study man or in some way are concerned with man because man is the only creature which has a
moral sense and who knows the difference between good and bad. The subjects which are more directly
concerned with man and this life and all of them have a morally elevating influence on man.

Phillip Sidney leaves out theology as it's more concerned with God than man. It tells about the nature of
man and about the things that please God, about the spiritual salvation of man. But its primary concern is
God-the nature of God, HIS ATTRIBUTES. Theology justifies the ways of God to man, so he leaves it.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
Next, he takes up law. Makes a distinction between Crime and sin. Taking wine isn't a Crime, it's a sin.
Crime is that which harms another man, depriving a man from his legal rights. So, there's a difference
between Crime and sin. Phillip Sidney made this distinction some 400 years ago. According to Phillip Sidney
punishment may prevent a man from doing wrong but it cannot make a man morally better. Because
becoming morally better is something to do with our conscience. By punishment we cannot strengthen the
conscience of a man. Rather we make him more resentful. (Loss of self-respect is the greatest factor
responsible for Crime). Punishment deprives a man from his self-respect and so he becomes a confirmed
criminal. Law is concerned with punishment, prescribes punishment for different crimes, so it cannot make
a man morally better. The Renaissance liberated a man from all shackles and Phillip Sidney was the child of
Renaissance. Phillip Sidney leaves law also because it cannot concern with moral goodness and badness
but with crime and punishment.

Ethics, poetry, history are the three left. All of these have a considerable influence on man but which one
of these has the strongest? The first claim is that of ethics (the science of morality), our sole concerned is
with moral values. Ethics arises and discusses some very important questions is related to morality. The 1st
question is whether good and bad are absolute or relative values. Shakespeare said nothing is good or bad
but thinking it's so. What is bad in one Society is considered nuetral or good in society. Muslims don't eat
pork but Christians do. Modern man doesn't like polygamy, it's considered evil but in Muslim context it's
not evil. They have 4 wives simultaneously. Buddhists believe in no violence, considered all war to be evil
but Muslims consider war to be good if it's fought for the expansion of Dar-ul-Islam called" Jihad". So we
see the concept of good or bad varies from society to society. A religion considered true in one Society and
false in another.

Another question raised by ethics is what is the criteria for good and bad? what's the basics which makes
us clear about good the distinction between good and bad.

The 3rd question is that of sumumbonum, what is the chief good, the aim of life? Is it perfection, beauty or
it’s the greatest good of greatest no? Or is it pleasure as the epicurean boy. So, the moral philosopher
takes up the question of conscience. Is it something inborn or acquired? Whether it different from
individual to individual? Does it provide the same guidance to all? Is it the something as Sigmund Freud
super ego? Who roles conscite has to play in the moral life of man? Then philosopher question about the
role of intention and motive in moral judgment. Even they go on to define the various virtues and vices. So,
ethics deals with all questions and issues concerning morality.

It discusses these questions rationally. So, ethics claims that it comes in the moral guidance of man. But
Phillip Sidney finds two serious flaws in this claim of ethics to be the greatest moral force.

1st flaw- ethics and discussion are beyond the understanding of common man. Ethics branch of Phillip
Sidney only philosopher can talk(discuss) about it. It's abstract/not concrete. It's a world of abstraction and
so not even interesting apart from being in comprehensible. The 2nd flaw, it doesn't contain any emotional
appeal or inducement for man to do good. It defines what is good but can't make us do good. So, it doesn't
contain any such inducement to enable (encourage) man to do good. This is a very serious flaw as we're
concerned with making man morally better. So, Phillip Sidney dismisses the claim of ethics to be the
greatest moral force in the life of man. No doubt it classifies our thinking regarding morality.

Next is history. It says what's lacking in the ethics is present in history doesn't deal with abstraction rather
with concrete men and women, their deeds. Even a man with ordinary education can have no difficulty in
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
understanding history. It is also interesting because it's the story of concrete men and women. It contains
an emotional appeal teaches many moral lessons. It is the duty of man to learn from history. So, history is a
great moral force which tells us about the birth, rise and decline of civilization. It tells us about great men,
rulers, conquerors, inventors, founder of great religions. So, it's a very great a very great moral force and a
very interesting subject. So, history claims that it should be considered the greatest moral force. But Phillip
Sidney Said this history has a fatal flaw. It tells what happened, rather what should be happen. Moral point
of view what should happen. It is justice. History isn't the story of justice. It's the story of exploitation of
man by other man, the story of wicked powerful man succeeding, triumphing. So, it's the story of what has
happened not what should happen.

The earliest stage of man is slavery (these were some slave-owners and a large number of humans were
slaves). Humans are bought, sold, they did whatever they wanted to do with them. They were the absolute
master of the lives of their slaves. So, this isn't justice. Slaves society was fllowed by feudal society. Feudal
lords owned vast tracks of land, had huge estates, vast parts of ..........…….... were a part of their estates. All
production was taken to the feudal lords who lived a luxurious life. Feudal society gave way to industrial
society/ capitalism. .................get concentrated in the hands of a few man. All the capital is owned by few
men and there is a large number of labors working on................... that hardly kept them alive. These labors
produce wealth for the wealthy. The gap between the poor and rich grows wider. This is also not justice.

Whatever periods we take, we found no justice in history. Then we're war-mongers like Halaku khan
Chengis khan etc. Who after conquering built pyramids of skull? They were great conquerors. So, history is
a history of wars. War brings death, destruction, agony, misery. This war has become a universal
phenomenon. It was the triumph of might over right, not the triumph of morally better over the morally
inferior. So, this is what he been not what should be. We learn from history. Toynber, the greatest
historian, wrote the study of history, for him the basic unit of civilization and has discussed the rise and fall
of many civilizations. He has a history...................... what you learn from history is challenge and response.
According to him history comes with physical, environment, geography, economic, polite, ideology
challenges and every age comes with new challenges. If we respond positively to the challenge, meet it
answer it and overcome the obstacles of the challenges. We can become a great civilization. But if we don't
meet the challenges, we are destroyed. The death of civilization is a very long process and we are not
aware of the fact that it's dying. When a civilization stops growing, its death starts and ultimately the
civilization dies. History is a story of challenge and of human response to that challenge. Every age has new
challenges and require new response. This is the greatest lesson we learn from history. But Philip Sydney
says that history has many flaws. It’s the story of human suffering, miseries, Injustices, so he dismisses
history also.

So, poetry is left to be discussed. According to Phillip Sidney poetry has the advantages of both history and
ethics without the disadvantages of either. Like ethics, poetry tells us what we should do and not what has
been. It also deals with the universal not local/regional. Poetry is more philosophy than history having
height serious and high truth. Like history poetry also deals with concrete things (man, women, their
struggles). Like history, poetry is very interesting easy to understand. A poet is a literary artist that conveys
the poetic truth in an excellence choice of words with rhythm, meter, rhyme melody super edit for
verification may not be essential for poetry. Its only address but the most suitable dress. So, poetry has
added advantage of verse. Poetry has also charming images similes, metaphor. A number of beautiful
poetic devices. Phillip Sidney says that such is the charm of poetry that it draws the children from their play
field in the old from the old man from their five sides- the two most difficult things done by poetry. So,
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
poetry gives universal, poetic, imaginative truths, pictures of men/women in a very pleasurable manner.
Philip Sydney goes on to give examples of how poetry is more philosophical/effective than ethics in
transforming the life of man of building his characters. He says that Cicero, has written a book on
Patriotism. He’s gone into the study of man to you explain why man loves his home homeland this is a
book of Philip Sydney on patriotism. Against this we have examples of Odyssey/ Ulysses.

• Philip Sidney takes another example from the writings of ________________ Who said that
anger is temporary madness they discussed the harmful effects of anger on man-explained
anger in an abstract manner. Against this we have a play by Sophocles, Ajax.

• Philip Sydney also gives example of________________ reporting the pride Agamemnon. He
took the girl from Achilles, he withdraws, a large number of Greeks died. So, he came back to
Achilles to take back his girl.

• The remorse of conscience. Oedipus after realizing that he has killed his father and married his
mother was shocked and made himself blind.

• Ambition exceeding all bounds, the example of two persons who had decided to rule this
country by turns. One of them joined the enemy.

• The poetry of an ideal man described in the book of ethics. Against this we have Virgil’s Aeneid.
Ideal man, perfect in every respect, forgiving, merciful, tolerant, never revengeful, feeling pity
even for the enemy. So, we learn in practical term what an ideal man is.

• Different philosophers from Plato’s downwards have written about ideal state. Sir Thomas
More’s Utopia is more attractive.

• Then there is an example of how poetry succeeds where all other fails. The story of the senator
was based on imagination I.e. poetry. So, he uses a poet and succeeded whereas all other
senators (Philosophers, intellectuals, moralist) etc. failed.

• David (a king and prophet) two wives, kills a man, marries his only wife. A sage comes to him,
tells a story for he can’t tell him in his face that he committed a sin. He says, a Shepherd has
two sheep, kills another shepherd having only one sheep. He needs justice when David heard
this, he said that the rich man was wrong. But at the same time, he realized that his own case is
very much like this. So, Philip Sydney tells us how poetry makes people realize their injustices,
follies and can bring them back to their real path. So, it’s the greatest moral force in the life of
man.

So far Philip Sydney talked about poetry in general. Now he talks about the effects of each kinds of poetry
on the character of the people.

 Tragedy - according to medieval belief poetry makes us realize the vanity of human life. The fall
of a great man from glory shows us that the things after which we aspire- wealth, power,
worldly glory, fame etc. are all useless/vanity. So, this makes us turn to God. This is the moral
effect tragedy has.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
 According to Philip Sydney in comedy reforms people not to do foolish things when the
common failings foibles and follies of common people are presented in Comic manner and their
action becomes a means/object of laughter and built of fun and laughter.

 Philip Sydney himself believed in chivalric code. He says while admiring the heroes, their heroic
actions deeds and their virtues in poetry, we ourselves develop these virtues.

 According to Philip Sydney in lyric poetry, we have moralizing in a very pleasant and delightful
manner.

 Pastoral poetry makes us admire the simple beautiful and peaceful life and also makes us
simple. It lets us know the atrocities done upon the simple shepherds by the feudal lords. So, it
makes us realize how these simple people are harassed.

 Elegy is a strain, a kind of music produced by a ______________ meter and _____________

choice of words. It’s written in a mournful strain not necessarily on the death of someone but
on the pain, misfortunes and sufferings of human beings. It makes us sympathies with the
sufferings, follies, foibles, failings etc of man and human life.

 Satire is against more sophisticated people/society and against their vanities, ______________ ,
______________ the vanity of a person/group/profession is marked at in a humorous manner.
Satire is urbane. Fielding satirizes the classes of people (doctors, lawyers, aristocrats, women of
fashion, priests etc.). He is showing a mirror to the people in which they see their own faces
(Fielding says). According to him the better way of reforming people is to make them laugh at
themselves. So satiric poetry does so and it has a morally beneficial influence.

 Iambic poetry is about tyrants not about common hypocrisies and affectations. Philip Sydney
says It unmasks the tyranny and villainy of kings and tyrants. So this kind of poetry condemns
more serious moral flaws in people of the higher class.

Conclusion: We can conclude that every kind of poetry has its own moral effect. Poetry in general is the
strongest moral force as it reforms people. So poetry far from being the mother of lies and a the nurse of
abuse, the strongest moral force in the life of man. This is Philip Sidney’s moral defense of poetry.

Before Philip Sidney, there was no work of Literary Criticism in English. People had started reading the
Greek literature but did not know anything about the nature and function of poetry. Philip Sidney’s main
task was to give people a work of literary criticism and to discuss the nature and function of poetry. To
expound the eclectic theory was his aim. So he borrowed from Plato, Aristotle and Horace.

Philip Sidney was conscious of something that was lacking in England, such that the work of literary
criticism. Having given us a work of literary criticism which was peculiarly English, he now takes up those
charges attacks which puritans had levelled against poetry. The puritans want poetry to be banned.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST

Charges of Stephen Gossan

 1. Poetry is all bound up with versification and rhyming. According to Philip Sidney, Rhyming
and verification is not necessary. We may have genuine poetry and prose, not in the verse
form for example (yropaeda, On the other hand, we may have a work in verse form which
may not be genuine poetry. E.g. Cato’s writing (his moral philosophy). Philip Sidney says that
verse is the most suitable dress for poetry. He points out that after reason the greatest gift
of God to man is the power of speaking. Rhythm, meter, rhyme make this power more
elegant. Speech is a gift of God and that which makes speech delightful cannot be
something bad. Then he says rhythm and rhyme makes our writing musical and music is
always delightful to hear. In rhythmic form poetry becomes more sensuous. Rhythm and
rhyme make it easy to be singed and memorable. So, versification arts to sing ability and
memorability. Why should versification and rhyming be considered bad? The charge is
ridiculous.
 2. Reading poetry is a waste of time. We should employ our time in better pursuit like
reading of theology. Philip Sidney says that poetry is the strongest and the most effective
force working for the moral improvement of man. Poetry enlightens man on moral issues
and so it cannot be a waste of time.
 3. Poetry is all false hood and poets are liars. Philip Sidney says that those who bring this
charge don’t know the difference between falsehood and fiction. Deliberately distorting
facts is false hood. Historians cannot be liars because they deal with the facts and by
misrepresenting facts, they become liars. But poets are not liars because they don’t deal
with facts but with ideas. They don’t say for example that Hamlet was a real character of
history (historically exist) and whatever he said was historically true. What is and what has
been- both are facts but what should be is not a fact. The poets are not liars (P.S wrote in
Old English) “The poet never asserted and never lieth “.
 4. Poetry arouse erotic fancies in the minds of the readers. That poetry is all about love and
so has a destructive influence on the character of the readers. That poetry makes a man
feminine and destroys his manliness. Poetry is a school of abuse. First of all, Philip Sidney
says that if large number of poets have written about love, and if love is a bad thing then the
fault is of those poets who have written about love and this is not the fault of poetry. They
have miss used poetry. Chaucer and Gower did not write about love. Then Philip Sidney asks
what is wrong with love. Love is the sincerest tribute that a man can be to the beauty,
personality, charm of a woman. Philip Sidney gives further becoming neo-platonic by saying
that the love between man and woman is the highest image of the love of GOD to man.
Love is divine and lifts us to the divine level. If a man can never understand GOD’s relation
and love to his creatures in general and to human in particular, he can do so only when he
falls in love with someone or something. So, this is not true that poetry makes a man
feminine. Homers Iliad, Virgil’s Aeneid, Aristo’s Orland Furioso (written on the war between
Muslims and Christians) or Tasso’s Jerusalem Librata, none of them make us feminine. Right
from the moment, the man began exercising his mind, and started his struggle to get his
bread and butter, he also started using his imagination. According to Philip Sidney armies of
all countries and nations of the world in all ages have been marching on Marshal tunes
(martial poetry). So how can poetry make us feminine?
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
 Finally comes the last charge that great plato condemned poetry and expelled poets from
his ideal republic. P.S had no difficulty answering the other charges but had real difficulty in
answering this charge because he himself was a follower of a Plato and because of this
charge P.S becomes a faulty narrator. So, Philip Sidney says that Plato didn’t condemn all
poets and poetry as such but only bad poets who weren’t using poetry for good purposes
rather, they misused poetry. He thinks that Plato wasn’t against poetry. He refers to Plato’s
ION in which Plato says that a poet is divinly inspired. The common view was that the poet
was possessed, that there are nine musses who inspires poets. A poet possessed inspired by
the muse of lyric poetry could only write lyric poetry and so on. A man inspired is out of
mind so people thought of him as someone possessed. As Plato says that God has taken
away his mind and put his mind into him and Plato here seems to be ironic but P.S takes him
in literal sense. Because irony is the most difficult thing to detect compared to satire and
sarcasm. Because in irony poets or writer seems to be agreeing with commonly believed but
he means just the opposite of it. Same is the case of Plato who actually didn’t believe in
musses. Like many others a large number of people, Plato also rejected the believe of old
religion and has no believe in possession of poet’s mind by musses. According to Plato the
highest faculty in man in reason, if one talks rationally, he cannot be out of his mind. The
highest truth (the ultimate reality) can be reached through reason rather than inspiration,
emotion or imagination. Plato thinks the more emotionally aroused we are the weaker our
reason becomes and lesser chances of getting to the highest truth. These are the basic
fundamental principles of his philosophy. When Plato says that the poet is inspired and out
of his mind, this isn’t a praise, rather he’s mocking. By repeating the common view, Plato is
trying to show how absurd it is. He actually believed in rational state of mind.
Most critics believed that Plato in the passage of the dialogue is speaking ironically. P.S
thinks that Plato is praising poetry and so poetry can’t be bad. So, P.S isn’t able to give a
satisfactory answer because Plato condemns not only bad poetry but all poetry, and
consider it to a world of falsehood and shadows. “twice removed from reality”.

Missing page

PHILIP SYDNEY'S THEORY/ VIEWS ABOUT ENGLISH TRAGEDY

English dramatic tradition is independent of the Greek and Roman traditions of drama. They had the
morality, miracles, mysteries, interludes etc. Theater was one of the few means of entertainment. But
Philip Sydney judged the English Drama of his age on classical standard and couldn’t find it of much value,
so he says that:
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
• The English Drama is full of violence and bloodshed, that the English Drama has no plot slovenly
constructed plot, has no unities. Philip Sydney accepts the classical view of drama. The three unities had
great importance and Philip Sydney says that the English Drama had no unity of place. One scene is in Asia,
another in Africa. In one scene a lady shown plucking flower (the stage is shown as a garden); in another a
shipwreck shown (and the stage appeared to be a rock); in yet another a battlefield shown, in fourth scene
a cave is shown. So according to Philip Sydney, it stretched our imagination too much. It destroys the
credibility of the audience.

• Similarly, there is violation of unity of time. In one scene a young man and woman appears, fall in
love very much with each other, get marries after having faced many difficulties, a child is born and lost.
But in the next scene the lost child appears as a grown-up person and like his father he is in love too. So, a
period of 30 or 32 years is shown in just 2 or 3 hours. Philip Sydney judges this on the basis of the theory of
verisimilitude. The war shown on the stage is not a real war but a mock war and if we are not conscious of
this, this will've no effect on us and the drama won't arouse the feelings of pity and fear and will not bring
about its catharsis.

• Another departure from the classical tradition which Philip Sydney finds in English Drama is the
mixture of comedy and tragedy (Dr. Johnson has defended it) In Greek drama there was no such mixing of
comic and tragic. It was either pure comedy or tragedy. They dealt with different aspects of life (comedy,
non-serious, tragedy serious) so the Greek and Roman didn't mix this but the English Drama of the time of
Philip Sydney had this mixture with Kings and Clowns. This was also a major fault Philip Sydney found in the
drama/tragedy of his age.

Now he puts forward his own views of Tragedy which is also eclectic like his general theory of poetry.
It's the synthesis of views/elements taken from different sources. His view of the theme and central
purpose of the play/tragedy is Medieval. His shows and is influenced by Medieval view of tragedy. So, he
says that

• Tragedy deals with the fall of a tyrant. The central character is a tyrant. This is different from
Aristotle who said that the central character is a good man having some tragic flow. But the Medieval view
which Philip Sydney accepts is that of a man having worldly wealth, glory, power which he uses for cruel
purposes. Tragedy shows his down fall and he gets what he deserves. So, this shows to the audience the
variety of all worldly affairs that all the things of this world (glory, fame, power, wealth) are vain and
nothing but useless. Because the Medieval people and world was more interested in the other world. We
find this too in Philip Sydney's view also. This is the first element of his theory of tragedy.

• The second element is taken from Minturno that tragedy arouses the feelings of admiration and
commiseration. Again, we see a departure from Aristotle.

• The third view has been taken from Scaliger the tragedy must have long stately speeches and moral
teachings in the manner of Seneca.

• The concept of Unities is taken from Castlevetro (an Italian critic) and suprisingly he accepts in the
name of Aristotle. Though Aristotle had only taken into consideration the unity of action. He just
mentioned the unity if time, and he didn't mention at all the unity of place

All these are based on the theory of verisimilitude that it is necessary to believe whatever you see on
the stage otherwise; it won't arouse the feelings of pity and fear.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST
• The plots of plays were taken from earlier sources. The playwrights developed them into dramas.
Philip Sydney says that one must handle his sources with considerable freedom. One must be free to bring
about the changes in the source play because we are not concerned with historical truth but with the
poetic truth. One can change the chronology of events. The events that happened later can't be brought
earlier. One should begin his play at an appropriate point so that we may have a single action. There is no
need to trace back the action to its original beginning. So, this is Philip Sydney view of tragedy as it should
be.

PHILIP SYDNEY'S CONCEPT OF COMEDY

The comedy of Philip Sydney's time was no better than an empty force arousing hollow laughter. Philip
Sydney wanted intellectual comedy and wanted laughter and delight. According to Philip Sydney shouldn’t
cause only laughter but also delight the audience. He points out the laughter is aroused by incongruency
and delight is because of harmony and laughter is due to disharmony (incongruency). Harmony can be
within a person, between men and between man and society. When there is harmony between men or
between man and society, it's a delightful situation. Philip Sydney wanted delight more than laughter. For
example, if we can see a very grave and well-dressed man walking along and slipping over a banana skin
with hands and feet in the air, it arouses laughter as it’s an incongruent situation. It arouses laughter but
doesn't give delight. Philip Sydney says that, on the other hand, the vision of a beautiful woman gives us
delight but not laughter. According to Philip Sydney says that, the ideal situation would be one in which
delight and laughter are combined for example, in Greek mythology, Hercules was a very manly man (tall,
hairy, hefty) who could perform heroic deed, fell in love with a beautiful woman. She would take delight in
fooling the people who loved her. Hercules was head over heels in love with her and would do anything
she asked him to do. So, she asked him to dress in a womanly dress (female clothes) and do stitching (i.e.
woman's work). So, a manly man doing stitching arouses laughter because of the disharmony. But this also
gives delight because it gives us an insight into the nature of love. It tells us what a man can do in love i.e.
he can act according to the whims of a woman. This insight into the nature of love gives delight whereas
the incongruity of the situation arouses laughter. Generally, a woman is supposed to be subservient to the
man but when he falls in love with her, she gets the upper hand. The man does whatever she asks him to
do even if it's irrational or ludicrous. And the woman takes delight in exercising her power.

Philip Sydney's view of comedy was like that the Romans i.e. it was witty and had intellectual humor
aroused by follies, foibles, frailties of mankind, not by evil or malice because the latter is not the purpose
of comedy. A man's disability arouses pity not laughter and is not the proper field/ domain of comedy
which deals with common follies and foibles of mankind e.g. of typical common situation (according to
Philip Sydney). A cowardly boasting soldier i.e. a soldier who behaves cowardly in the battlefield and later
on boasting how he killed hundreds of soldiers is a comic character. Similarly, a fussy courtier always
moralizing (for example in Hamlet, Ophelia's father, Polonius) and boring us with his sermons and
appearing to be all knowing. Or an affected traveler who comes and tells us of all the things he has seen.
Or a bookish conceited school master. According to Philip Sydney these are examples of typical comic
characters i.e. they all show frailties of man which can be satirized in comedy. This, as Henry Fielding
pointed out, could also reform man when satirized. If you laugh at yourself with intelligent humor then
that would lead to reform. But reform through laughter and delight. The playwright that comes closest to
this ideal is Ben Jonson who appeared 50 years after Philip Sydney and later on Sheridan.
 Notes on literary criticism prepared by Honorable Sir Ishtiaq, Department of English KUST

Causes of decline in literature (according to Philip Sidney)

Philip Sidney talks about the decline of literature in his age and analyze the causes of it. English literature
began with a literary giant Chaucer i.e. it began in impressive manner. But Chaucer is a lonely giant with
none before or after him for over a century. Why was it that no glorious author appeared between
Chaucer and Spencer? After Chaucer there was barren age in English literature history. Philip Sidney gives a
surprising reason for it. According to him literature declined because of the peaceful phase through which
England was passing. This made people indolent i.e. they no longer had the desire to achieve great things.
Philip Sidney thinks that war brings out the best in man. War fires a man with noble ideas. It puts life into a
mission and the whole nation begins achieving great things and the mission in everything and every field
including literature.

But this view of Philip Sidney is debatable for war fills man with hatred, divides people, brings destruction,
misery and violence etc. That war brutalizes the society is the opinion of all some people. But Philip Sidney
lived in a different age. Although the medieval age had persisted, yet some values of the medieval age still
persisted. Chivalry had died with the chivalric knight is always ready to fight for justice.

The second reason that Philip Sidney gives is more convincing. He says that ignorance of great literature
and ignorance of the rules by which great literature had been written/produced is the cause of decline in
English literature. English literature writers at that time had not discovered Aristotle and other great Greek
writers. The scholars had discovered them to an extent but the scholars and philosophers not writers of
literature work. The English writers did not know Homer, Sophocles etc and so with nothing to guide them,
they were producing literature of inferior quality. Philip Sidney for the first time invented the formula for
producing great writing in English literature i.e the formula of knowledge and imitation and practice.
Knowledge of rules of Pindar, Sophocles, Aristotle etc. Philip Sidney believed that the Greek had produced
in every branch of literature perfect writers/model. Homer for epic etc. So, in order to write great and
perfect writing/poetry one should imitate the respective master/models. i.e s/he should use the same kind
of long characters, action and construction of plots etc.

They should also give very good knowledge of the respective genre/type of literature /poetry. After having
gained perfect knowledge of great writers, having mastered their rule of composition. They should start
imitation and goes on practicing them again and again. So this was the secret of writing great literature /
poetry which was followed by the writer of 17 th and 18th centuries in England. And this formula was given
for the first time in England by Philip Sidney but the writers of England in Philip Sidney’s time had no
knowledge of the great Greek writers. They just practiced and so this did not work out for them
successfully.