Discuss the relationship of teaching (docere), delighting (delectare) and moving (movere) in The Defence of Poesy. - Literature Essay Samples

Poesy, therefore, is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in the word mimesis, that is to say, a representing, counterfeiting or figuring forth to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture with this end: to teach and delight. Discuss the relationship of teaching (docere), delighting (delectare) and moving (movere) in the Defence.Stephan Gossons Puritan attack on poetry, and the source from which he derived a number of his complaints, Platos Republic (X), in which Socrates banishes poetry from his idealised state, were joint forces in prompting Sir Philip Sidneys Defence of the art. Responding primarily to Platos suggestion of fictions morally corrupt influence on its readers (specifically incorporated into Gossons The School of Abuse), Sidney employs a style that fuses the rhetorical and polemical with an almost conversational friendliness in order to present his argument in a persuasive manner.Sidneys various assertions centre on poetrys positive force for inspiring it s readers not, as Plato contested, towards sinful things, but instead towards virtuous action, through following the traditional tripartite aim of rhetoric; to teach (docere), delight (delectare) and move (movere) not only in furnishing the mind with knowledge, but in setting it forward to that which deserveth to be called and accounted good, which setting forward and moving to well-doing (page 21). The verbs Sidney uses here relate to affecting the mind into action, and it is exactly this notion of transforming individuals that Dr. Gavin Alexander captures when he describes poetry as teaching not only what to think but what to do, and inspiring the reader with a desire to act accordingly. The lynch pin of this civilising function is undoubtedly mimesis, the Greek word more or less translating as imitation or representation in English, although there is no easy or exact translation due to the complexity of the concept. In order to fully comprehend Sidneys meaning here it is necessa ry to contrast Platos and Aristotles separate understandings of mimesis. Whilst both poets undoubtedly believed in physical and ontological realities transcending the realms of the human mind, Platos mimesis was rooted in his belief that this world and the things in it are simply imperfect versions of perfect conceits that exist only in the ideal,of which everything in this world is only a copy. When art imitates life, it is merely imitating an imitation, there being two removes between it and the original: the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is thrice removed from the king and from the truth (Republic X). However, Aristotolian doctrine dictated that the artist represents realistic possibilities; he redefined mimesis as the figuring forth of an idea, a fore-conceit, existing in the poets mind. Thus, the poet takes on the almost divine persona of the creator; rather than making a mere duplication of the original, in Aristotles view, he shoul d attempt to capture the essence of an idea, and represent it by embodying the whole in exemplary characters and actions. Platos argument led him to believe that poetic mimesis was a force used by poets to misdirect and deceive, emphasising his claim that it is over-dramatic with his warning to the admirers of Homer that by accepting the sweetened Muse, they are accepting emotions in the place of rationality and reason, but it was the Aristotolian view of mimesis that Sidney adopted in his Defence as a basis for his view that poets imitate both to teach and delight, and delight to move (11). By employing the metaphor of the speaking picture, Sidney eloquently conveys that without them, poetry could without much difficulty descend into either vitriolic diatribe or pointless amusements; the vivid descriptions appeal to the imagination evinces the general notion, and Sidney draws on the Horacian opinion that things seen make more of an impression on the mind than things heard in his explanation that poetrys metaphorical nature is not only part of its pleasure but also part of its power to move. Indeed, The Defence of Poesy is itself extremely metaphorical, and Sidney incorporates his own speaking pictures in the work as a means of illustrating his point. For example, he dramatises the argument between the figures of philosophy, history and poetry with the rhetorical prosopopoeia: Among whom as principal challengers step forth the moral philosophers (13), setting it in a metaphorical courtroom environment in order to mimetically seal the image in the minds eye of the reader as they are tricked into taking the sugar-coated pill. It would be convenient, for the purposes of study, to be able to separate docere, delectare and movere into three individual categories in order to deal with each respectively, but Sidney affords the reader no such pleasure. The three aims are intertwined in their purpose and, more confusingly, in their meaning; Sidney at no point give s us a completely lucid and logical explanation as to the precise effect of each, but he executes his argument, despite the apparent minor vacillations, by always grounding it in the idea of mimesis. Clearly, the function of teaching knowledge is to lift up the mind from the dungeon of the body to the enjoying his own divine essence (13), but Sidney emphasises multiple times that poetry is rhetorical in its ability to transform people not by teaching them what to think, but instead by teaching them what to do. It is not, Aristotle maintained, the knowing, but the doing that is the fruit knowledge without action on it is pointless. In dwelling upon the steps towards virtue; make to imitate, and imitate both to delight and teach, and delight to move men to take that goodness in hand, which without delight they would fly as from a stranger, and teach to make them know that goodness whereunto they are moved (11), Sidney stresses the meticulousness of his argument, exploiting the rhe torical climax to create the effect of theoretical, systematic processing of a methodical series of events, each one logically leading to the next.An apposite literary illustrative example of mimesis appears in Shakespeares Hamlet, when the protagonist dons the rÃÆ'Â ´le of the tragic playwright in the Mousetrap and contends the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her features, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure (Act 2, scene 2; 22 -24). Through the medium of drama, Hamlet presents his court with the truth as a speaking picture, to generate action as the mirror in one relatively short sequence mimetically not only reflects the murder scene but also embodies far more about the corruption in the court.Sidneys comparison between poetry and other disciplines spans most of his Defence, punctuating the work in a rhetorical manner, each time reverting to similar arguments as he challenges similar complaints, and in all of this drawing attention to the poets prowess in contrast to others. He stresses the precepts of philosophy and the concrete, bound nature of history, and complains that whilst both may have knowledge to deliver, neither will be truly successful in the delivery as they do not apply the triple aim of rhetoric: docere, delectare, movere. Unlike poetry, neither impart information using the Aristotolian figuring forth (mimesis) and since one must be moved to practise by pleasure (22), they ultimately fail in winning [of] the mind (23). As Sidney introduces his argument against philosophers (that they teach in such an obscure way that it is indigestible for the un-learned Sidney actually uses the metaphor of the tenderest stomachs (18), indicative of the dynamism involved in absorbing knowledge and acting upon it, just as a stomach has to actively absorb food) and historians (that they only recite (20)) it is clear that he has far more of a polemic unfolding than was previously realised. Not simply is Sidney defending poetrys place in the world, but in addition, he is asserting its place over and above the other forms of learning; it is, he maintains, the monarch of sciences (22). Of course, as critics, it is important to interpret The Defence of Poesy as itself a piece of literature, albeit a piece of literary criticism, and to bear in mind that the Philip Sidney in the Defence is a literary rhetorical construct, designed purely to present an argument, and does not necessarily bear a great resemblance to Sidney the author. This may account for a number of discrepancies and apparent contradictions in the work, which I shall examine. Also, perhaps more importantly, it serves to remind us that as literature, it too works on a mimetic level, indicating once again that the teaching, delighting and moving that Sidney writes about in his Defence he also integrates into the main body of the work, e xploiting it as an illustration of his theories. The story of Sidney, Wooton and Pugliano serves as an introduction and reason for Sidneys apology, and his provision of a parallel (the praise of horsemanship) furthermore enhances the speaking picture that is the whole of the Defence, as Sidney continues in his effort to define what the idea of poetry really is. The fact that we know the Defence to be both judicial, in defence, and epideictic, in praise, rhetoric of poetry is significant in that it tempting to think Sidney may therefore be more intent on winning the argument than on building a viable literary theory. This need to convince the reader of the ability of poetry to teach, delight and move, rather than any strong conviction in the argument itself, plays itself out in the general style of the work. Sidney seems to be performing a balancing act between formal oration and wanting to have fun with the reader. There is in this tension one sense that the conversational style functions to veil the didacticism of the work, lending the flippancy a studied edge, but the rather romantic interludes when Sidney expands on classical mythology and a number of witty ironies such as this ink-wasting toy of mine (53) denote a playfulness in the writers approach as he treats us metaphorically as children and tries to bring us to take most wholesome things by hiding them in such other as have a pleasant taste (23) as he describes poets doing generally.Furthermore, a number of ambiguous contradictions arise as Sidney clutches at his argument but fails (when we look closely) to be able quite to sustain that the reader experiences docere, delectare and movere through the process of imitation. There are various examples of this self-contradiction, but to examine only a few contradicting statements is sufficient to ascertain that in order to defend his argument that poetry is a force for teaching, Sidney has to compromise the details of his imitation argument. In consid ering comedy, and defending its reputation against the charges of moral corruption, Sidney says that And little reason hath any man to say that men learn the evil by seeing it so set out, since there is no man living, but, by the force truth hath in nature, no sooner seeth these men play their parts but wisheth them in pistrinum (27), thus maintaining that men would turn away rather than follow any evil actions observed on stage. He goes on to describe the way heroic poetry inflameth the mind with desire to be worthy, and inform with counsel how to be worthy (29), but it is difficult to imply the two and still sustain the argument that imitation always moves people to virtue. That the assumption that people are inherently good is a naÃÆ'Â ¯ve viewpoint is actually subsidiary (due to the fact that we are dealing not with the author Sidney but with the literary construct) to the way that it undermines Sidneys argument, as he gives no explanation for it.Ultimately, the implications of my argument are that in bestowing the ennobling function on poetry as a force for teaching, Sidney illustrates his theory with the work itself, and sets it as its own speaking picture, incorporating many other speaking pictures within itself, as a rhetorical method. However, the many relationships between teaching (docere), delighting (delectare), and moving (movere) in the Defence are complex because the work in which they are set is a didactic piece, it is not just a personal opinion; the author is prepared to sacrifice minor accuracies in order that the overall argument is won by the convincing nature of his rhetoric, and this affects the authority and validity of the argument. Sidneys various rhetorical devices influence his theory of mimesis (and its tripartite aim), pulling it in the opposite direction to that of the several contradictions that also arise. Counterbalancing his rhetoric and formal style with witticisms and some more playful contradictions, Sidney concludes that pleasure experienced, in the imitation of ideas, is what makes poetry effective in propelling the reader towards virtuous living, and, in effect, nothing can teach and move to virtue as well as poetry can.