English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Let the Poet Create
Why do I sense that the poet must defend itself in every generation? I have my own opinion about where it all began. If Plato hadn't poisoned men's minds into believing that poetry was inherently bad for society, there would be much more debate on the issue of what makes good art and how to be a skilled poet rather than the question of whether or not art should be tolerated. Once again the validity of poetry is argued under fire.
Thanks to well-intentioned (maybe?) fellows like Gosson, the innovative stylist Sir Philip Sidney felt he had to regurgitate the opinions of Aristotle and Horace in defense of poetry as art. In doing so, however, he used the opportunity as a means of kindly opposing some of the views that had been held in the name of tradition for so long. I applaud Sidney for his efforts to show how tradition is not sufficient as a reason for adopting universal rules in such a diversified field as the humanities.
Okay, so Sidney defends poetry by showing poetry to be dignified next to fields like philosophy and history. How? Unlike the historian or the philosopher, the poet must necessarily use art as a buffer to reveal truth. Plotinus would agree with this assertion since the poet's strength comes in the ability to tap into the divine through art. Sidney also wants to make clear that the poet is not a liar. How can he say this, since a poet's words can be nothing more than emotional fancy? Simple. What does the poet claim to be right and true? Nothing. He simply writes the facts (facts as in a story, not necessarily reality).
I was particularly intrigued by a passage from Sidney's apology near the beginning of the essay. In my quest to answer what is the function of literature according to these artists we study, I find that Sidney not only has a theory about its function but also has logical evidence to show how literature naturally functions the way it does.
For Sidney, art is not meant to be simply a means to teach and delight through imitation. He argues that this teaching reaches to a profound level if done properly. He sets this up first by identifying the different types of poets, only one being an optimal example of a proper poet. There are poets that are inspired by false gods. There are philosopher poets that deal in matters of ethics, nature, science and history. Sidney had a real hesitation to classify then as poets at all. Then, there are the ideal poets who, unlike the others, imitate from Form. In this, they indeed tap into the divine, as Plotinus states, and act as prophets of sorts. What kind of art does this kind of artist create? I say they create art that acts as a channel to the ultimate good. Unlike Plato, who sees art as an imitation of an imitation, Sidney applauds the artist for making poetry to "imitate both to delight and teach [. . .] to move men to take that goodness in hand [. . .] which being the noblest scope to which ever any learning was directed" (332).
So, why can't others leave the artist alone and let him create? What's so difficult about allowing the prophet to use his genius through what we call the "divine" (that is, the creative power allotted to each individual in various portion) in order to direct humankind toward that which is good?