An Apology for Poetry by Philip Sidney

Sir Philip Sidney helped usher in the great literary flourishing of the late sixteenth century in
England. His posthumously published lyric poetry, prose fiction, and literary theory had an
immediate impact on his contemporaries, including Edmund Spenser and William Shakespeare, and
have exerted a shaping influence on the course of English literature to the present day. In his own
lifetime, he was widely admired as the embodiment of the ideals of the era, and upon his death from
wounds sustained in battle, his life became legendary. Of his literary works, the Apology for Poetry
is the most philosophical – notwithstanding the fact that in the work Sidney explicitly pits poetry
against philosophy (as well as history). In the Apology Sidney argues for the ethical and political
value of fiction (poetry), contending that fiction can bring about self-knowledge that moves
readers to repent of their faults and to embrace virtuous action. Sidney draws on a wide array of
classical and continental sources, and critics have identified a variety of intellectual currents running
through the work. What is clear is that Sidney departs from the older conception of poetry as veiled
theology to a new understanding of poetry as distinctive and valuable in its own right. Throughout
the work Sidney displays such wit and charm that it is difficult to imagine a more winning
presentation of his position.

As with most of Sidney’s works, the Apology is difficult to date precisely. It was written around 1582
and published posthumously in 1595 in two versions that are substantially the same: The Defence of
Poesie and An Apologie for Poetrie. Highly allusive and effortlessly inventive, the Apology deploys
extraordinary learning with a light, often self-deprecating touch, and the reader cannot but be
charmed by the persona that Sidney creates. The form of the Apology is that of an epideictic
oration, and Sidney’s praise of the art of poetry has the standard seven parts.

He constructs his argument in a rational, highly structured form. He begins with a general
introduction (or exordium); states the facts that support poetry’s status (narration); establishes his
main argument (or proposition), that poetry is morally effective because it is delightful; divides
poetry up into genres which are then used as confirmation of his proposition; refutes the case made
against poetry, by considering the counter-arguments (real and potential) which had been made
against the position by both classical and contemporary authors; and finally comes to a conclusion
by restating the value of poetry, and considering how it is not practiced in England and in the English
language.

A dazzling rhetorical performance, the Apology is a piece of literary theory that is itself an important
work of literature, one that has had a lasting impact on the understanding of literature and its
relationship to life. In the Apology, Sidney defines poetry not as verse but as fiction making. Poetry
figures forth an imagined world that mirrors the reader’s world, especially in its ethical and political
dimensions. In that heterocosm, readers can recognize the truth about themselves and their world –
what they are and what they should be – and are inspired by the experience to embrace their better
selves in the real world. Sidney gives special emphasis to heroic poetry, which brings forth idealized
types that not only instruct and delight readers but also move them to imitate their heroic examples
in their own lives. The ideal examples of poetry for Sidney are Virgil’s Aeneid and Xenophon’s
Cyropaedia. It was with an eye to emphasizing heroic action that Sidney was revising the Arcadia,
and it was very much this idea of poetry that Spenser produced in the Faerie Queene. Spenser, like
his patron Sidney, believed that artistic imitation could inspire moral imitation and that a great poem
could shape the ethical and political life of a nation.
Defence in Detail

The speaker recalls learning horse riding from an enthusiastic teacher. Though now a poet not by
choice (unelected vocation), he feels compelled to defend poetry, which has lost esteem, in contrast
to the respected occupation of horsemen he was once taught.

Those who criticize poetry are ungrateful, as poetry was the first teacher of knowledge in noble
languages and nations. Learned Greece cannot name any books before its first poets like Hesiod and
Homer. Poets like Orpheus drew people to knowledge with their sweetness, moving stones and
beasts. Poets were also the first writers and teachers of learning in Rome and languages like Italian
and English.

Early Greek philosophers also first expressed their ideas through verse, masking their philosophy
as poetry. Figures like Solon who addressed war, policy and natural philosophy were themselves
directly poets, unveiling higher knowledge through their delightful skills.

Plato's works had a philosophical substance, but he strategically employed poetic elements in
their presentation. His dialogues feature fanciful conversations between ordinary citizens
discussing lofty ideas they likely would not actually discuss. He also vividly described scenic settings
for these talks, like banquets and walks, interweaving mythical stories throughout. These poetic
techniques, such as the imagined dialogues and inserted myths, served to beautify and embellish
Plato's philosophical works like flowers in Apollo's garden. Anyone who fails to recognize Plato's
skilled use of poetry has never fully explored the poetic and literary qualities beneath the
philosophical depths of his renowned dialogues.

Even historiographers have employed poetic techniques and styles in their works. It notes how
Herodotus titled his history after the Muses and how historians have described passions vividly like
poets or put long speeches in the mouths of leaders that were likely never spoken. It argues
philosophers and historians could not have effectively communicated to the masses without
employing poetic devices. It's suggested learning itself may come to more "barbarous" cultures
through the sweet delight of poetry softening their minds.

Among the ancient Romans, poets were called "vates", which means diviner, foreseer or prophet.
Their skill with words was greatly admired. Romans believed randomly coming across certain verses
in poetry, like Virgil's works, could foretell their future fortunes. This gave rise to the term "sortes
Virgilianae". Stories of Roman emperors' lives contain instances where opening Virgil's book led to
verses that predicted future events. This showed how greatly poets' writings were respected. While
believing poetry could control spirits was a vain superstition, the precise use of language and
imaginative conceptions of poets were thought to have some divine or prophetic force to them.
Oracles at Delphi and the Sibyl's prophecies were delivered entirely in verse form. So the reverence
for poets was not entirely without foundation, given verse was used for divination elsewhere.

The Psalms of David are argued to be a form of divine sacred poetry or "heavenly poesy", as their
name means "songs", they are written in Hebrew meter, use poetic techniques like invoking
instruments and vivid description, and depict unseen spiritual realities in a manner showing David's
passion for the beauty of faith.

The Greeks called a poet "poet" from "poiein" meaning "to make", thus a poet is a "maker".
Remarkably the English name also uses this term, which the author considers an exceedingly high
title, preferring readers explore other disciplines to appreciate its worth.
All arts and disciplines have nature as their principal object of study and rely on the works of
nature to exist. They observe and interpret nature's patterns. Astronomers, geometritians,
musicians, philosophers observe natural phenomena and derive rules from nature. Historians record
human actions. Grammarians study language rules. Lawyers describe human agreements.
Rhetoricians and logicians consider what persuades based on nature. Physicians examine the human
body and remedies. Metaphysics builds on a deep understanding of nature. However, the poet is not
confined to studying and interpreting nature directly. Through the power of invention and
imagination, the poet creates works that are even better than nature or form entirely new things
never seen in nature, like mythical heroes and creatures. Thus the poet walks hand in hand with
nature but is not restricted only to nature's gifts. Instead, the poet ranges freely within the domain
of his or her own wit and creativity, growing into "another nature" through works of imaginative
invention.

Poets have crafted the earth in richer tapestries than nature through descriptions of pleasant
rivers, trees, flowers and other beauty. “Her world is brazen, the poets only deliver a golden”.
Nature's world is mere brass while poets deliver the world in gold. Poets have also created humans
greater than those found in real life, like deeply loyal friends and true lovers. Fictional figures like
Orlando, Cyrus and Aeneas displayed higher virtues than seen in reality. This should not be dismissed
as just imitation, as the artisan's skill lies in their imagined conception or "idea" of the work, not the
work itself. The poet demonstrates this idea through skilfully delivering imaginative works. Their
creativity does substantial work - not just imagining individuals but bestowing them upon the world
through their art. Poets can make many Cyruses by teaching readers why and how the poet crafted
their virtues, going beyond nature's limited singular examples. Their works can have real influence
and improve humanity beyond what is found in natural life alone.

Sidney argues that comparing poetry's highest achievements to nature is not too bold, and poetry
best shows man's divine creation by surpassing nature, though these philosophical points will be
understood by few; however, the Greeks reasonably called poets "makers", and a simple
explanation of poetry, while not gaining the highest praise of etymology, should still warrant
significant commendation.

Poesy therefore is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in his word mimesis, that is to say,
a representing, counterfeiting, or figuring forth - to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture; with
this end, to teach and delight. There have been three kinds of poetry in antiquity based on what is
imitated:

1.The chief or most excellent kind imitates the inconceivable excellencies of God. Examples given
are the Psalms of David, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and books like Job. While some
ancient poets like Orpheus and Homer imitated the divine but with flawed theology, this type of
divinely inspired poetry that imitates God must still be used as Scripture advises and can provide
comfort during spiritual sorrow.

2. The second kind of poets deal with philosophical matters - moral (like Tyrtaeus), natural (like
Lucretius and Virgil's Georgics), astronomical (like Manilius), or historical (like Lucan). Those who
dislike this kind have faulty judgment, not the poetry itself which sweetly utters knowledge. This
second kind is confined by the proposed subject matter, not inventing freely, so some dispute if they
are truly poets.

3. The third and truly right kind of poets are those this question principally concerns. The
difference between second and third kinds is like painters - some merely replicate set subjects,
others having no law but their wit freely bestow fitting forms like Lucretia's lamenting look
punishing another's fault. The second kind philosophically treats set topics, while the third and truly
poetic kind invents freely within the bounds of their wit and not merely what is presented to them.

The third kind of poets properly imitate to teach and delight. They invent freely within the bounds
of what may/should be, not borrowing from reality. These are most rightly called "poets/makers"
and receive the highest praise in excellent languages and minds. They make to imitate in order to
teach through delighting, moving readers to pursue depicted goodness willingly rather than avoid it
as strange. Despite their noble aims, idle tongues still bark at them. These poets are subdivided by
subject matter (heroic, tragic etc.) or type of verse used (lyric, iambic etc.), though verse is an
ornament not requirement as some excellent poets wrote without it.

Poetic works can be in prose as rhyming and verse do not define a poet, rather it is feigning notable
images to teach delightfully; while poets conventionally use precisely weighed verse to surpass
others in subject and style.

Sidney weighs poetry based on its works and constituent parts to see if it deserves a favourable
verdict. Learning's ultimate end is to lift the mind from the body to divine essence through
purification, enrichment, enabling judgment and enlarging conception. People pursue this through
different disciplines like astronomy, philosophy, music, mathematics with the goal of knowing and
bettering themselves. However, experience shows these disciplines' practitioners can still err, so
they are "serving sciences" directed to the highest end of "self-knowledge". The final end of earthly
learning is virtuous action, so skills best bringing that forth justly rule other disciplines. Moral
philosophers claim virtue's surest path is through understanding its nature, causes, effects, vices,
passions at individual and societal levels. The author will set poetry before these challengers to
assess if it deserves to rule as the skill best cultivating virtue.

History & Philosophy

The historian interrupts to claim he barely gives the moralist time to speak. The historian is laden
with old, mouse-eaten records and relies on other histories largely based on hearsay themselves.
Reconciling differing accounts and discerning truth from bias occupies him. He knows past ages
better than the present and himself. Still, he knows world affairs better than his own mind. Curious
about antiquities and novelties, he's a wonder to youth and tyrant in conversation. In a frenzy, he
denies anyone teaches virtue and virtuous deeds better than him, quoting himself as "light of life,
teacher of times, memory of life, messenger of antiquity". The historian interrupts arrogantly to
claim based on his records and knowledge of past ages, no one surpasses him in cultivating virtue
through history's instruction.

The historian argues the philosopher teaches a disputative virtue but he teaches an active virtue
through examples. The philosopher's virtue shines safely in Plato's academy, but the historian's in
real battles. The philosopher teaches virtue through abstraction but the historian bids followers to
emulate past deeds. Individual experience outstrips philosophers but historians give the experience
of many ages. If the philosopher is the guide, the historian is the light who aids learning. He would
cite innumerable examples of wise leaders guided by history like Brutus and Alphonsus of Aragon. In
the end, their debate concludes that the philosopher provides precepts while the historian furnishes
examples for imitation. Finally, the historian argues that while philosophers theorize, historians
actively cultivate virtue by illuminating history's examples for emulation in leadership and
decision-making.
The author argues the poet deserves the place of highest regard if shown to outdo even the claims
of historian and philosopher at learning's summit, second only to divine knowledge due to its
unlimited scope and superiority to all disciplines.

The lawyer, though law/justice stems from justice and virtue, seeks to make men good through fear
of punishment rather than love of virtue. The lawyer's aim is not truly making men good but
preventing individual evil from harming others. He cares not how bad a man is as a citizen.
Therefore, while necessity makes the profession honourable, the lawyer does not rank with
disciplines like poetry that endeavour to remove vices and plant goodness in men's innermost
being. Of the fields dealing with human character, the one best cultivating supreme knowledge of
morality deserves highest praise. Thus, the author argues the lawyer's role differs from disciplines
focused on inner moral reform, thus he cannot truly rank with poetry, history and philosophy that
aim to elevate human character itself.

While the philosopher provides rules/ precepts and historian examples each aim to develop virtue,
both are limited - the philosopher's abstract precepts are difficult to understand and apply without
another guide to aid interpretation, so each falls short alone in achieving the goal. The historian
focused on particular past truths lacking philosophical reasoning is limited, as his examples do not
necessarily apply generally and are thus less fruitful for teaching virtue than precepts could be,
showing each discipline individually has shortcomings.

The poet achieves what the philosopher and historian cannot alone by both prescribing virtue
through general rules and exemplifying it via impactful particular images that join the universal to
the individual, imprinting virtues on the mind far better than words alone.

While one can repeat what's learned from philosophical definitions of virtue and such, without a
poet's "speaking pictures" to illuminate them, they remain obscure to the imagination and
judgment, just as hearing a description differs from seeing an accurate painting. By transforming the
abstract into vivid, accessible images, poetry succeeds in imprinting philosophical ideas on the
mind where definition alone fails.

Poets help make us understand emotions like love of country through memorable characters like
Anchises or Odysseus pining for Ithaca. Poets like Sophocles enable deeper insight into concepts like
anger than philosophers' definitions. Poetic depictions of virtue in Homer's characters or vices in
works of tragedy illuminate these qualities recognizably. Poetic works provide exemplary models of
governance and behaviour that outdo philosophers' counsel, like Xenophon's Cyrus or Virgil's
Aeneas. More's Utopia shows how poetically "patterning" an ideal society teaches, though More
himself may have fallen short. If philosophers fail more at perfecting their art than poets, it's not the
art's fault but its difficulty for most to fully realize. Thus the poet surpasses the philosopher in
illuminating virtues, vices, emotions and their application through vivid exemplars that profoundly
teach recognizable truths.

Even Christ could have simply taught moral principles but instead used impactful narratives like
the parables of Lazarus/Dives and the prodigal son. His wisdom knew these stories would more
firmly imprint lessons on memory and judgment. The poet is food for all, including most tender
minds, making the poet the true popular philosopher. Aesop's fables prove this, stealing moral
lessons under apparently simple beast fables to teach virtue to those beastlier than beasts. While
philosophers instruct obscurely, only comprehendible by the already learned, the poet teaches
accessibly through affective stories better remembered and absorbed even by the least educated
minds. The poet is thus the ideal popular moral guide.
It could be argued history provides truer images than poetry's imaginary ones. However, Aristotle
deemed poetry more philosophical/serious than history as it considers universal ideas, not singular
facts of what happened. The universal examines probability/necessity, which poetry reflects in
"imposed names"; history just records individual acts. For instruction, fictional exemplars like
Xenophon's Cyrus and Virgil's Aeneas that embody ideals are more educational than factual
accounts alone. While a historical portrait is preferable to an inaccurate one, fiction better teaches
by presenting how things should be rather than just how they were. Though history depicts reality,
poetry more profoundly instructs by considering universal truths and providing ideal models through
imaginary yet truthful characters, making it the more philosophical and instructive art form.

Just as a portrait of a sweet ideal face labeled "Canidia" would benefit a lady more than Canidia's
true ugly face, so too fiction teaches better. The poet shows in Tantalus, Atreus only what is to be
avoided, in Cyrus, Aeneas, Ulysses only what to emulate. But the historian bound to factuality
cannot offer a perfect exemplar without becoming poetic, instead showing some praiseworthy and
some not so actions in historical figures. Then how do you know what to follow without your own
discretion, which you had without reading the historian? While poetry surpasses in universal lessons,
one may argue history warrants imitation more by recording actual.

Unless understood merely as likelihoods, poetic examples excel by embodying reason rather than
fortune, and teach as profoundly despite being imaginary rather than factual. the poet's freedom to
recreate histories and actualities makes their art subject even historically factual accounts, for the
purpose of more enlightening and pleasurable instruction. while history claims to show virtue's
reward, poetry alone truly fulfills this by always depicting virtue attractively and vice receiving due
punishment, thus encouraging goodness beyond any other discipline.

Even if the philosopher teaches more methodically, moving the soul to goodness and action is a
loftier achievement, and the source of what makes teaching impactful. On this level, the poet
surpasses all others. While philosophy informs, applying knowledge requires motivation. Simply
knowing good from evil is natural, but poets uniquely move the soul to enact wisdom through virtue.
Their inspiring ability to propel learning into deeds where philosophy falls short earns poets highest
praise.

The poet is the monarch of all human sciences in their ability to motivate. Not only does the poet
show the way, but entices entry through sweet prospects, like grapes along a vineyard path. Poets
avoid obscure definitions requiring interpretation, instead using delightful words that delight the
ears like music. Their tales enchant children and old men alike, pretending little but intending to
instill virtue subtly. Just as children accept medicine better hidden in pleasing foods, so men accept
wisdom better through pleasurable stories than philosophical lessons. Hearing tales of great heroes,
one can't help but absorb the wisdom, valor and justice described - lessons they'd reject were
presented philosophically. In essence, the poet surpasses all teachers in moving and delighting their
audiences into receptive learning of life's deepest truths.

Poetry most closely imitates nature, allowing even gruesome topics to delight and stir virtue, as
Aristotle noted. Through this power, poems move readers' hearts to exemplify qualities like courage,
making poetry the supreme instructor. While philosophers debate virtue's nature, poets delight
audiences and implant vivid imaginary examples that stir even the hardest hearts to wish to perform
acts of excellence and steal glimpses of the goodness they find themselves loving before they realize,
showing poetry's unmatched motivational power to move people towards virtue.
Menenius Agrippa, a skilled orator, quelled Rome's divided populace not through rhetoric but with
an apt fable. He told of body parts conspiring against the belly, not realizing it nourished them,
showing harm in rebelling. Nathan addressed David's adultery and murder, not through accusation
but a parable of a man's pet lamb stolen, allowing David to see his own sin reflected. These two
famous examples show how poetic tales delivered profound truths more effectively for the audience
than direct speech or philosophy could. The stories' applications were divinely apt though the tales
themselves fictional, transforming listeners immediately through recognition of vice mirrored in the
analogies. These poets guided their subjects to repentance and reconciliation not through argument
but by using apt imagined narratives that allowed hidden truths to be glimpsed, to greater effect
than any other method.

Having established poetry's supremacy, its different forms will now be named and scrutinized
individually to see if any flaws emerge in their rightful usage.

While the pastoral poem appears simple, beneath tales of sheep and wolves it can express deeper
insights into oppression and leadership, portraying the misery of subjects and blessings of good
rulers. Even mighty struggles end in trivial victory, as later voices say that once the fight between
Coridon and Thyrsis ended, Coridon alone was renowned. Its low hedge prevents unfair
condemnation.

The lamenting elegiac stirs just pity by mourning human frailty. The iambic openly shames vice. And
satire, through smiling friends, mocks folly until men laugh at and abandon it. Rather than blame,
these genres' virtues in enlightening and stirring emotions rightly seem deserving of praise.

While some abuse comedy, the genre itself imitates life's common foolish errors so ridiculously that
no viewer could wish to see themselves that way, addressing abuse not inherent faults, as it holds a
scornful mirror to flaws no one would desire.

Comedy and tragedy rightly depict vice's foulness to reveal virtue's beauty, as we wish punishment
on such staged characters and thus see our own faults clearly, learning from portrayals of life's
realities what rulers and types to expect and avoid, with tragedy teaching life's deepest
uncertainties.

Plutarch notes tragedy moved even the cruel tyrant Alexander Pheraeus to tears, despite committing
endless murders including family. This shows poetry's sweet power, though in him it did no further
good as he avoided its softening lessons. It's absurd to reject tragedy, the finest depiction of virtue's
worthy lessons. Is it the lyric then, praising virtue through tuned song, moral lessons and natural
problems, sometimes lifting voice to heavens in immortal praise? Ballads stir more than trumpets -
what would they do in Pindar's eloquence? Songs of ancestors' valor kindle courage for Hungarian
and Spartan soldiers, sung at feasts and war alike. While Pindar sometimes praised trivial victories,
that reflected Greeks' valuation, not poetry itself. As Pindar often did, lyric best stirs thoughts from
idleness to noble enterprise.

The heroic genre, championing great figures like Achilles and Aeneas who teach the highest truths
and inspire love of virtue's beauty, is rightly considered the best form of poetry, as its noble images
inflame minds to pursue worthiness and provide guidance for doing so. Yet critics irrationally
disparage its name alone without cause, just as sick women are pained yet know not where, offering
no valid grounds to find fault in any of poetry's particular and proven effects.

Poetry is the most ancient and universal form of human learning, divinely named by Greeks and
Romans for its prophetic and creative powers, as poets generate their own material and teach
virtue while delighting learners beyond historians and nearly matching philosophers. While
Scripture and Christ affirm its virtues, balanced consideration requires hearing any reasonable
objections that might merit answer or yield to demonstrate this art's worthiness of the laurel crown
triumphing over other fields.

Answers to the Accusations

Poet-haters waste words in quips and taunts to avoid consideration of worth, like playing wits
praising anything. Rhyming rightly deserves praise for polishing language and aiding recollection,
unlike shallow faultfinders who correct without understanding.

Verse far exceeds prose in aiding memory for clear reasons: words set in verse cannot be lost
without failing the whole work, accusing and recalling itself to strengthen memory. One word
suggests the next in rhyme or meter, enabling prediction that reinforces retention. Memory arts
show nothing aids memory like compartmentalized, familiar spaces - perfectly emulated by verses
assigning each word a natural seat. All scholars retain Virgil, Horace etc. verses learned from youth
as hourly lessons. Verse's fitness is proven by its use compiling essential rules across arts and
sciences. As verse is sweet, orderly and best for memory, the basis of knowledge, mocking it can
only be in jest. Main objections are: other studies fruitful than poetry; poetry a liar; it spreads
harmful desires through sweet falsehood like sirens; softened courage and vigour. Plato expelled
them - this amounts to much if truth supports it.

In essence, verse powerfully shapes memory compared to prose, undermining the primary critique
that other studies are better uses of time if poetry most teaches virtue.

Poets are not liars.

Physicians often lie by prescribing medicines that lead patients to "Charon's ferry", and other experts
make assertions in "cloudy knowledge" where lies easily creep in. But poets never affirm or assert
anything as true - they do not conjure imaginations to believe what they write, cite no authorities,
and call upon the Muses for invention. Their aim is not to tell what is or isn't true, but what should
or shouldn't be. Therefore, though recounting untrue things, they do not lie since they do not
present it as true. Nathan and Aesop did not lie in their tales, as one would be wicked or simple to
think they wrote as factual truth. In essence, poets do not lie as other experts may, since they do not
present fiction as truth, making no claims or relying on fallible sources like historians. Their purpose
is inventing what should be, not reporting what is. Therefore, the charge of systematic deception
does not apply to poetic creation.

No child believes Thebes written on a door is literally Thebes, just as those recognizing poetry
presents ideal pictures rather than actual histories will not mistake allegory/figurative speech as lies.
While history seeks truth but peddles falsehood, poetry seeks fiction but employs narratives
productively as backdrops for moral instruction. Responding critics say poets ascribe names,
implying intended historical truth - but lawyers similarly name hypotheticals without falsehood.
Poets name characters only to enliven pictures, not construct histories, just as chess pieces receive
names without lies told. Names like Cyrus or Aeneas portray ideal virtues, estates and fortunes
rather than assert literal historical accuracy. In essence, just as children know theatrical signs are not
real places, recognizing poetry's purpose is imaginative invention rather than documentation guards
against mistakenly judging fictional art as deceitful claims about truth.

Critics' principal complaint is poetry trains wit in wanton sinfulness and lustful love through
comedies teaching rather than reproving amorous concepts and lyrics/elegies lamenting lost love or
Cupid's influence even in heroic works. However, one could say man's wit, not poetry, abuses poetry
by making the art that should depict good things ("eikastike") depict vain and unworthy things
("phantastike") instead, as painters can depict unseemly rather than excellent subjects. The abuse of
a thing does not make its right use odious. While poetry can be abused due to its charming power to
do more harm than other speeches, this is not cause to reproach the art itself. Rather, whatever
does most harm when abused also does most good when rightly used, as each thing derives its
definition from proper employment. The faults of lovers and readers do not damn the art—man's
wit, not poetry, corrupts good poetry, and abuse does not negate merit but shows potential when
rightly directed.

All skills abused teach harm - physic enables poison, law enables crime, God's word twisted breeds
heresy. Yet skills rightly used do good - swords kill or defend, needles help or hardly at all. Critics
claim poetry bred idleness, but who recalls a time before it? Even plain Angles had it. This criticizes
all learning, as some Goths wanted to burn a library, seeing thinking as leisure letting enemies thrive.
Abuse corrupts any skill or knowledge, not just poetry, and critics provide no evidence poetry
originally harmed national virtue. Additionally, dismissing intellectual pursuits as idle only reveals the
critics' own anti-intellectual barbarism, not poetry's demerits when properly directed towards virtue.
Abilities and arts themselves are neutral and defined by their employment.

Claims that learning breeds idleness are ignorant, as poetry in particular accompanies soldiers,
strengthening rather than weakening virtue. Critics blindly condemn all pursuit of knowledge except
poetry itself, undeserving further rebuttal for such self-contradictory folly. Soldiers enjoy poetry like
Orlando Furioso and King Arthur far more than philosophical debates, showing poetry strengthens
rather than weakens martial virtue. Homer flourished before Greece's golden age, possibly inspiring
both their thinkers and fighters. Alexander emulated Achilles over philosophers, taking Homer not
Aristotle into battle. While Cato disliked Fulvius bringing Ennius to war, greater men like Scipio
approved, and Cato's criticism was of the poet not the art. Clear evidence refutes claims poetry
weakens courage or utility.

Though Plato expelled poets from his Republic, balanced examination is needed given Plato's own
poetic nature and that philosophers, developing structured knowledge from poetry's mysteries,
naturally resented their teachers. Philosophers found honour for Homer but rejected some of their
own, showing poetry welcomed where stern intellects were not. Plato's authority alone cannot
damn an art he embodied and philosophers resented for gracing what they systematized,
demanding considered evaluation of his reasons.

Poets like Simonides and Pindarus civilized the tyrant Hiero but Plato failed to reform Dionysius,
himself becoming the philosopher's slave. One could similarly complain against philosophers by
citing passages in Plato and Plutarch approving abominable acts, as poets are accused of. It is
unclear from which republic Plato expelled poets, since he permitted community of women there.
Poetic sonnets would do little harm where any woman was available. Philosophical teachings should
be honoured as breeding wisdom, so long as they are not misapplied, as poetry too is subject to
abuse. Those dismissing poetry risk double standards by not equally faulting philosophers' own
works, and Plato's criticisms seem contradicted by the flawed practices of his idealized community
where poetry's effects would be negligible. While philosophy instructs when properly applied, both
arts risk harm through misuse rather than inherent faults.

Plato and Paul critiqued only the abuse not the art of poetry, as Plato sought to remove false deity
notions thought spread by poets but which predated and imitated prevailing theologies, while
praising poetry's divinely inspired nature exceeding human wit. Those invoking Plato's name to
condemn poetry distort his nuanced perspective shown in works like Ion to have supported it when
properly directed.

Poets garnered highest praise from exemplars like Alexander, Caesar and Socrates, with Aristotle
defending the art and Plutarch teaching its value through history and philosophy. Its virtues of
doctrinal truth, courage-stirring strength of mind defuse low criticisms, needing no defense given
Plato's esteem. Poets thus deserve laurels as symbols of their accepted worth, there being no cause
to let detractors cloud the clear values of an art upheld throughout antiquity.

The author laments poetry's cold welcome in England despite its royal and intellectual favor
elsewhere historically, as only servile men now undertake it to please printers alone, disgracing the
art through lack of merit. True poets suppress their gifts rather than join this company, and he
himself lacks desert for the title. Those drawn to poetry would do well to reflect if suited through
reason, as the art must gently lead or be guided by discipline in art, imitation and considered
practice to properly nurture innate talent.

Chaucer excelled in Troilus and Cressida despite misty times, while Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar
and works by Surrey contained beautiful parts, but most modern English verse lacks poetic sinews
and coherence, with rhyme alone carrying works that fail when meaning is assessed without rhythm.

English tragedies and comedies were justly cried out against for disregarding rules of civil art and
skillful poetry in a way that even relatively better works like Gorboduc did through defective
handling of place and time, the crucial dramatic circumstances. Where Aristotle and reason dictate a
single location and days should pass on stage, works portrayed multiple places and days inartificially,
often requiring characters to specify settings or rendering them confusingly contradictory, as when
three ladies gathering flowers transitions immediately to a shipwreck in the now incompatible "same
place." English plays absurdly changed locations implausibly like showing a monster then armies
instantly. Timelines spanned years in hours, violating spatial and temporal representation sensibly
followed even by continentals starting in medias res rather than years-long travels. Plots mixed kings
and fools disproportionately for crude rather than necessary humor, lacking true tragedy or comedy
and balancing tones, instead using indecency to provoke crude laughter contradictory to sustained
enjoyment or admiration.

Comedy's end is teaching, not ridiculing the wretched, though laughter and delight sometimes align.
English drama misses poetry's purpose by laughing at others' expense rather than using stock
character types to genuinely reflect humanity's virtues and vices in a way that teaches through
recognition of our common foibles and follies. Songs and sonnets also frequently utilize stock
phrases without conveying true passion.

English literature suffers from an affected use of strange, far-fetched words or rigid dictionary
diction in poetry and prose, along with barren rhetorical figures, merely for showiness. Imitators of
Cicero and Demosthenes would do better internalizing their styles through attentive translation
rather than retaining surface-level rhetorical "notebooks" to artificially season every work, resulting
in unnecessary verbosity over clarity.

Tully effectively used repetition in anger, but we improperly transpose rhetorical techniques out of
context. Works overuse similitudes ransacking all references which becomes tedious prattling
swaying memory not judgment. Cicero's orator forebears eschewed artifice through plain sensibility
winning popular credit, suggesting sparing ornamentation lest seeming more concerned with artful
style than honest persuasion.
The author finds some courtiers have a more natural style than professors as courtiers follow what
suits human nature rather than artificial displays of skill. While some say English is mixed or lacks
rules, these are strengths as its ease of expression conveys thought equally or better than other
languages through short phrases without complex grammatical precepts burdening the mother
tongue.

English uniquely facilitates both ancient quantitative verse observing syllable quantity and modern
rhyming verse relying on word stress, as it avoids defects like Italian's excessive vowels, Dutch's
consonants, and French and Spanish's scarcity of last-syllable accents, thus fitting consummately for
reproducing styles where others face hindrances.

English rhyme precisely observes accent where other languages cannot, contains caesura like Italian
verse, and facilitates all three rhyme types - masculine, feminine, sdrucciola (Italian) - uniquely. Since
poetry contains virtue, knowledge and is beloved of gods for mysteries purposefully obscured,
despite trivial discourse, the author urges ceasing scorn and treating poets as esteemed teachers
who through verse can confer divinity and immortality on readers and language.

Thus, praising poetry brings immortal renown through print and association with great bards, but
willful poetry scorn curses one to a loveless life lacking sonnetry's favor and an anonymous death
with no epitaph, as being too dull or disdainfully earthbound to hear its planet-like music deprives
one of poetic apotheosis among immortalized souls in works' hallowed pages.