9/29 Response: Defense of Poesy

Some thoughts on Sydney:

Sidney tells us that Poetry must move one towards good moral action. He criticizes philosophy as “abstract and general” (262) and often difficult to understand as it is not concrete. History is criticized as too concrete – concerned only with what is and was and not what should be. Poetry, on the other hand, can be understood by the uneducated and those “more beastly than beasts” 263. Does this mean that Sidney would object to any piece of art that lends itself to multiple interpretations? In our time, the moral of a given story is often open to interpretation, and we often have to dig deep to find it. Perhaps, in these cases, Sidney would say that the true moral of any given story is found on the surface? I don’t think the most “beastly of beasts” are likely to dig very deep to find a story’s moral.

also...

Sidney says that the poet cannot be a liar, because he does not claim any authority and affirms nothing. Would he object to the epistolary style of writing, or any other device that might make fiction much more likely to be interpreted as fact? It is true that an author of an epistolary novel does not affirm that its contents are factual simply buy using this device. But would Sidney object to using said device simply because of the likelihood of misinterpretation? I get the feeling that clarity is key to Sidney’s definition of poesy.

I have a few nitpicky comments about Gilbert & Gubar's "Monstrous Eve" essay, but I'll put that in a different post.

Dan Fiorelli