First Critique

My impression of Sir Philip Sidney is that he was a very proud and probably arrogant poet. Sidney acknowledged that poesy was viewed by the public as an inferior of the arts. His goal in writing was to give an honourable defense of poesy, directed to the misinformed, via " some more available proofs " (212). He started off by alluding to a selection of famous historical writers. Poets such as Hesiod and Petrarch were instrumental in the development of the sciences, and philosophy. Whereas a non-poet like Plato had stumbled on poesy through writing. Sidney argued that in order to convey the aesthetics of such genres as history, philosophy, and science; poetry must be the bridge that writers use to link them. I found it interesting how Sidney danced around the topic of nature. Nature (involving anything in the cosmos) was something that was defined and/or articulated by science, philosophy, and history. In such descriptions of nature through these vices the interpretation of the image conveyed could sometimes come across as ugly, and depressing. Sidney said that juxtaposed with 'poetical imitation' nature can seem 'delightful'.

Unfortunately I feel that Sidney falls short in his defense. His premises such as these seem too objective, and the evidence found, seems very selective (ahh, that rhymes). In merely reading the text one does not find enough objective proof of Sidney's arguments, but this may be unfair, because I'm sure Sidney assumed that every reading that he alluded to had been already read by the reader.

Random

Beyond Tintern Abbey we shall go!