Sir+Philip's+Poet-Kings

// Poets Must Become Kings: // The Defence of Poesy’s //Modern// //Argument that English Majors Are Best Able to Lead// By David Arrington Morgan

In //The Defence of Poesy//, Sir Philip Sidney confronts other contemporary arguments against the value of poetry and goes a step further in asserting that poetry is the best field of thought. Sidney compares the poet as a profession to the philosopher, the historian, and to the lawyer in an attempt to argue that the way the poet deals with virtue and knowledge is superior to the latter three. Further, Sidney says these four professions are the only that are involved with human concerns, and are thus the only candidates to govern. Since leaders of nations must be intellects and because poets are the best intellects of virtue, they should be the rulers. Putting Sidney’s argument into a modern context, the four professions could be paired to modern university fields of study: the lawyer – law, the historian – history, the philosopher – philosophy, and the poet – English. Therefore, Sidney’s claim in //The Defence of Poesy// can be used as a modern argument in defense and promotion of the literature major as the best preparation for future world leaders.

First, in establishing poetry’s importance, Sidney goes off of the unstated idea that government is necessary for a society and its virtue – his ultimate end. In governing, it is necessary to be a learned intellectual.[i] And in order to be an intellectual, one must enjoy and obtain pleasure in the pursuit of knowledge.[ii] Since the leaders of the world must be learned, they must use that knowledge to lead by and towards virtue. Sidney concludes:

“So that, the ending end of all earthly learning being virtuous action, those skills that most serve to bring forth that have a most just title to be princes over all the rest.” (219-20)

Based on those assertions, it becomes apparent in a modern sense that it is necessary for future leaders to possess intellect. Look no further than former U.S. President George W. Bush’s negative portrayal in the media as less than intelligent. And because intellect is foundational to a government’s success, it is also necessary for individuals’ intellect to be a genuine love of knowledge, not a means to Sidney’s virtuous end.

Where does that “pleasure in the exercises of the mind” come from (Sidney 212)? The purpose of knowledge, in Sidney’s eyes, is to “lift up the mind from the dungeon of the body to [enjoy]… divine essence” (219). So, the intellectual pursuit of virtue is essentially a way to God. Or the virtue that intellect is able to claim it possesses is because a best-lived life is one that pursues knowledge. But Sidney takes a fatalistic view of everyone’s station in life when he calls his poetic profession an “unelected vocation” (212). Based on his deterministic assumption, intellect and whatever specific form it takes in an individual is pre-determined to an individual whether by God or the cosmos. And so, modern leaders of the world have a meritocratic version of divine right – that is, their divine right does not come from being born great, but from achieving greatness based on their innate abilities (e.g., intelligence). Thus, the issue in contention is: what is the best means (i.e., profession/major) that an intellectual individual can pursue to achieve the best end (i.e., a leader who governs by virtue)? According to Sidney, of all of the humanistic studies, the poet is “monarch” (226). This is based on the proposition that only fields that are concerned with “men’s matters” have the potential to govern (221). In a modern sense, the significance of SAT scores shows that society places a firm value in the notion that intelligence is partly innate potential. That potential determines an individual’s academic future, which is foundational to his/her future as leaders. Based on this parallel to //Poesy//, it can be argued that the English major as the best way to become a leader.

In order to prove his original claim, Sidney takes on the other three professions concerned with “men’s matters…, the supreme knowledge” (221). The least-threatening competitor to the poet is the lawyer. Even if law is descended from justice, it doesn’t matter, because the lawyer attempts to make a society virtuous through the fear of punishment rather than the love of virtue;[iii] he/she isn’t pursuing truth.[iv] Therefore, since the lawyer suppresses vice rather than promote virtue, he/she is the last of the four as a candidate as the best to govern. Thus, in present day, the study of law is beneath the study of literature, philosophy, and history, because it only concerns the potential leader with vicious things not virtuous ones.

Then, Sidney means to show the inferiority of the philosopher and the historian to the poet but also to compare the two. He shows this through the basic ontological distinction between them – philosophy is concerned with universals and history is concerned with particulars. Given that dichotomy, Sidney explains the historian’s inferiority to the philosopher:

“The historian, wanting the precept, is so tied, not to what should be but to what is, to the particular truth of things and not to the general reason of things, that his example draweth no necessary consequence, and therefore a less fruitful doctrine.” (221)

An historian can know //that// something happened, but he/she doesn’t necessarily know //why// and //how// that happened. A particular has a foundational universal that underlies it, and if the historian does not know that universal, as Sidney claims, then the historian cannot fully understand a particular historical event. Since the universal is needed before the particular, the historian is third of the four professions. For example, in basic paragraph structure, one writes around a specific idea. A paragraph starts with a sentence about that idea, which every subsequent sentence of the paragraph should support. Because the first sentence is focused with the abstract concept, the paragraph continues to explain and narrow that concept within the general frame. Eventually, the general is rooted with a particular example that proves the abstract idea exists in reality. It would be illogical in western rhetoric to begin with a particular example without any higher understanding of the relevance of that example. Since the abstract should come before the concrete, philosophy is above and more fundamental than history.

The historian is further subordinate because his/her knowledge’s truth is unreliable. He/she achieves authority as a historian based on evidence presented by other historians. And because //history is decided by the victors//, as they say, the inaccuracy of historic accounts devalues the virtue that the historian pursues.[v] For the same reason that hearsay viciously misinforms the historian, he/she is more tempted to repeat vice because they study vicious events of the past.[vi] The history major lacks the deeper meaning that a philosophy major is concerned with. So, while the history major could repeat a detailed account of the events that occurred under the Bush wiretappings, the philosophy major could tell you that its underlying idea is something like //inter arma enim silent leges[vii]// and understand the reasoning of those events, which is sequentially important in understanding why it happened and how to prevent or further a specific underlying universal precept. But because the philosopher is still too obscured to apply such an example to his/her universals, he/she is still under the poet.

The philosopher, specifically the moral philosopher (220), is at fault because, as Sidney says, “their contempt of outward things” (220). That is, as exemplified in the previous paragraph, the philosopher lives in a world of ideas that is outside of everyday reality. In being focused on the academically abstract, he/she is not able to ground those same concepts into real world experience. Further, because of their theoretical isolation, the philosophers are unfit to be the best leaders because their arguments are “so hard of utterance and so misty to be conceived” (220). The philosophy major is trapped in the obscure and ignores the everyday, so he/she is isolated and ineffectual to govern.

In comparing the philosopher and the poet, Sidney claims that the former is the only one that deals with philosophy as much as the actual philosopher,[viii] which is why it is already established that the poet surpasses the historian.[ix] The distinction Sidney makes between the poet and the philosopher is the respective methods both use to convey the philosophical to the world: the philosopher teaches, while the poet moves.[x] “Moving” is one of Sidney’s main claims supporting why the poet is best. “Moving” (inspiring) is practical because it results in doing, while teaching results in knowing.[xi] And in another sense, in citing Aristotle, Sidney perhaps also means to evoke Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover.[xii] And in channeling the divine, Sidney potentially means to say that while the poet deals with “men’s matters” (221), unlike the other three, the poet, in moving, does it in a divine manner. That divinity is why the poet defeats the philosopher.

The assertion that the divine is what makes the moving superior needs to be grounded. An effective way of distinguishing teaching from moving, and explaining why the moving is divine is to look at Aristotle again. Teaching and moving are the terms Sidney links to the way the two fields obtain and convey knowledge. Looking at all knowledge epistemilogically, rhetoric is the best and only means to communicate knowledge. Based on Aristotle’s ideas, philosophy and teaching could be paired with logos and poetry and moving can be paired with pathos. That is, the philosopher teaches through deductive reasoning and unfeeling logic, while the poet moves through emotion, music, and fictitious examples set to an intentionally underlying philosophy. For the same reason that pathos’ superior strength comes from its reliance on emotion, poetry’s moving is more powerful than philosophy’s teaching. Both may be concerned with revealing the same universal truth, but the emotional appeal that the poet brings also brings him/her authority with the others he/she reveals the truth to in the same way a child is made to eat their unpleasant vegetables by hiding them under something better tasting.[xiii]

The specific way the poet does this, as Sidney lays out, is through the musicality of words. Sidney compares the poet and philosopher’s tools:

“For if… speech next to reason be the greatest gift bestowed upon mortality, that cannot be praiseless which doth most polish that blessing of speech; which considers each word, not only (as a man may say) by his most forcible quality, but by his best measured quantity, carrying even in themselves in harmony.” (233)

The poet’s power comes from his/her words and ability to morph words into music. Music is a version of pathos in its ability to evoke feelings in humans. So, in making their words musical, the poets are able to move their audiences and conjure a sense of something divine.[xiv] In comparing the manner a philosophy major and an English major might persuade an audience based on their learned skills, it is the English major who possesses the magical articulation and gift of gab while the philosophy major is left with apathetic logic to convince others to follow. And as the English major deals with the same universals as the philosophy major, but in tailored stories rather than obscure texts, the former is able to address the abstract with an enjoyable hypothetical, while the philosophy major is left in his/her isolated world of unapplied theory.[xv]

After his celebration of the poet, Sidney confronts the arguments that mused his defense of poetry. There are three basic counter-points – time spent on poetry could be better spent on more productive studies (e.g., medicine), poetry lies, and poetry intoxicates with desire.[xvi] To the first point, Sidney replies with his previous larger argument about the value of poetry and that in asserting the innateness of intellect, poetry’s repulsion is “not the fault of the art, but that by few men that art can be accomplished” (214). Second, a poet cannot lie, because his/her medium is meant and known to be fictitious. That is, he/she acknowledges his words are not true. Since a lie attempts to portray something that is false as true, the poet is not lying.[xvii] In fact, the purpose of the poet’s intentionally “false” stories is not to comment on existing events, but to use the story as a tool to interlace with a philosophy. The story then presents a modified, unreal reality that is able to display how the poet’s divine intellect informs him/her on the way reality actually is and should be; yet, this can be conveyed in no other way.[xviii] Finally, in acknowledging the final assertion concerned with desire, it is void because while it may be one of poetry’s aims it is not its only or primary mission. And because Sidney proved poetry’s status as the most virtuous knowledge, it is invalid because this counter-argument is speaks to the same thing that moving does. While desire may be vicious, desire is a misrepresentation of poetry’s aim towards the passionate results of its music.

Based on Sidney’s argument, the parallel argument that the study of literature is superior over all other majors is valid. It is further reasonable to attest to the English majors more accomplished ability to lead based on the poet’s culminating ability to combine the skills of the other professions to achieve Sidney’s categorical imperative of virtuous action. Due to the poet’s use of musical words as a medium to convey a universal concern within a tailored example and the resulting power of emotion, he/she is the most virtuous profession and the most able to rule. In learning the art of language and its force, the student of literature is more apt than any other major to direct the art of articulation to their intended meaning. Further, the English major handles both universals and particulars in a way that no other humanity does, like the poet, which guides its students wisdom through practical philosophy – knowledge no other major achieves. Because of his/her study of the virtuous wisdom rooted written in powerful words and tailored tales, the English major is the best preparation for modern university students who go on to lead society.

[i] “Skill of government was but a //pedanteria//” (Sidney 212). “//Pedanteria//. Italian word for “pedantry’, or heavy-footed book learning” (Duncan-Jones 372).

[ii] “For until they find a pleasure in the exercises of the mind, great promises of much knowledge will little persuade them that know not the fruits of knowledge” (Sidney 214).

[iii] “Because [the lawyer] seeketh to make men good rather //formidine poenae// than //virtutis amore//” (Sidney 221). “//Rather formidine poenae than virtutis amore//. Through fear of punishment rather than love of virtue” (Duncan-Jones 376).

[iv] “So he is not in the deepest truth to stand in rank with these who all endeavour to take naughtiness away and plant goodness even in the seretest cabinet of our souls” (Sidney 221).

[v] “The historian… authorizing himself… upon other histories, whose greatest authorities are built upon the notable foundation of hearsay” (Sidney 220).

[vi] “But the history, being captivated to the truth of a foolish world, is many times a terror from well-doing, and an encouragement to unbridled wickedness” (Sidney 225).

[vii] // Inter arma enim silent leges //. “In the times of war, the laws fall silent.” Cicero.

[viii] “I think no man is so much //philophilosophos// as to compare the philosopher… with the poet” (Sidney 226). “//philophilosophos//. A lover of the philosophers” (Duncan-Jones 379).

[ix] Aristotle himself… determineth… that poetry… is more philosophical and more studiously serious than history… because poesy dealeth with… the universal consideration, and the history with… the particular” (Sidney 223).

[x] “The philosopher… doth teach more perfectly than the poet, yet… no man is so much //philophilosophos// as to compare the philosopher in moving with the poet. And that moving is of a higher degree than teaching… For who will be taught, if he be not moved with desire to be taught? And what so much good doth that teaching bring forth… as that it moveth one to do that which it doth teach?” (Sidney 226).

[xi] “For, as Aristotle saith, it is not //gnosis// but //praxis// must be the fruit” (Sidney 226). “//not gnosis but praxis//. Not knowing but doing” (Duncan-Jones 379).

[xii] Aristotle’s concept of God in //Metaphysics//.

[xiii] “The child is often brought to take most wholesome things by hiding them in such other as have a pleasant taste” (Sidney 227).

[xiv] “Music… the most divine striker of the senses” (Sidney 233).

[xv] “But he cometh to you with words set in delightful proportion, either accompanied with, or prepared for, the well enchanting skill of music; and with a tale forsooth he cometh unto you” (Sidney 227).

[xvi] “Now then go we to the most important imputations laid to the poor poets… First, that there being many other more fruitful knowledges, a man might better spend his time in them than in this. Secondly, that it is the mother of lies. Thirdly, that it… [infects] us with many pestilent desires” (Sidney 234).

[xvii] “He nothing affirms, and therefore never lieth… to lie is to affirm that to be true which is false” (Sidney 235).

[xviii] “[The poet]… not labouring to tell you what is or is not, but what should or should not be. And therefore, though he recount things not true, yet because he telleth them not for true, he lieth not” (Sidney 235).

Bibliography Duncan-Jones, Katherine. Notes. //Sir Philip Sidney: The Major Works//. By Sir Philip Sidney. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 332-408. Print.

Sidney, Philip. “The Defence of Poesy.” //Sir Philip Sidney: The Major Works//. Ed. Katherine Duncan-Jones. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 212-50. Print.