The Defence of Poesy

Sidney often refers to poets as “makers” in The Defence of Poesy. The analogy allows him both to present poets as ideal craftsmen, and to separate the art from the artist as needed. The title of “maker” reflects the etymology of the word “poet,” from the Greek poiein, meaning “to make.”

This identity, and the parallels it allows between poets and other craftsmen, helps Sidney to separate the maker (poet) from the craft (poetry) that he is defending. For example, when the author enumerates the ways in which poetry surpasses history, he argues that the poet has the power to craft any story imaginable—but he qualifies it by saying: “Which if I be asked what poets have done so, as I might well name some, so yet say I [...] I speak of the art, and not of the artificer” (37). Poets, as makers, should not be conflated with their art. This is important when Sidney confronts bad poetry. Acknowledging that bad poetry exists, the author divorces the maker from the craft, explaining that “[critics should] not say that poetry abuseth man’s wit, but that man’s wit abuseth poetry” (54). The “maker” analogy allows Sidney to shield poetry itself from certain criticisms.

Sidney uses this analogy not only to defend poetry, but also to elevate the role of the poet. When marvelling at the grim state of poetry in England, Sidney sets the activity of the poet-maker against what he sees as the laziness of contemporary England. He posits that the country does not want to be shaken out of its lethargy, concluding that “so serves it for a piece of a reason why they are less grateful [gratifying] to idle England, which now can scarce endure the pain of a pen” (62). This description of idle England highlights the active power of the poet-maker.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of setting poets as makers is that it allows Sidney to tie them to his Christian theology. In praising the poet’s ability to imitate and improve upon nature, he bids the reader to “give right honour to the heavenly Maker of that maker, who having made man to His own likeness, set him beyond and over all the words of that second [mortal] nature: which in nothing he showeth so much as in poetry” (24). In Sidney’s vision, just as God is the Maker of nature and mankind, so the poet is the maker of another sort of reality; through this craft, then, poets become analogous to God.

Just as Sidney finds meaning in the Greek roots of the word “poet,” he also places significance on the Latin word for poet, vates. (It should be noted that this is not the only Latin word for “poet,” but it is the most convenient for Sidney’s argument.) This word is a synonym for “prophet,” and Sidney relishes the image of the poet-prophet. He points out the ancient reasoning behind this term, since some Romans believed that great poetry had magical prophetic powers; he adds: “Which, although it were a very vain and godless superstition [...] so yet serveth it to show the great reverence those wits were held in” (21). Sidney points out that ancient divine predictions, such as Greece’s Oracle of Delphi and Rome’s Sibylline Prophecies, were also written in verse, showing the divine power that was once associated with poetry.

Sidney extends the concept of the poet-prophet to Christianity, arguing that certain passages in the Bible count as poetic works. Regarding the Psalms attributed to David, Sidney hails “his handling his prophecy, which is merely poetical: for what else is the awaking his musical instruments [...] but a heavenly poesy” (22). Finally, when he lists the kinds of poets, Sidney begins with divine poets: “The chief, both in antiquity and excellency, were they that did imitate the unconceivable excellencies of God” (25). Following a brief praise of the divine poets, the author concludes his thoughts on them with “the first and most noble sort may justly be termed vates” (26). By fusing his humanistic reverence for antiquity with his contemporary Christian beliefs, Sidney reminds his audience that, if poets in general are makers, divine poets are prophets.